MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE CAPITAL OF PUNJAB (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1952
BEFORE: The Chief Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, UT Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh 160009, being the appellate authority under section 10(1) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and under Rule 18(i) of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007
Diary / Registration No. ____________________ of 20________
(to be allotted by the office at the receipt counter on the day of presentation; the appellant must obtain it in writing on the spare copy before leaving the counter)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Harjinder Singh Bedi, son of Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh Bedi, resident of House No. 1234, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh 160019
... APPELLANT / PETITIONER
AND Manjit Kaur Bedi, wife of Sh. Harjinder Singh Bedi, resident of House No. 1234, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh 160019
... CO-APPELLANT / CO-PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Estate Officer, Union Territory of Chandigarh, Town Hall Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017
... RESPONDENT
Presented on: 8 April 2026
SUBJECT: Challenge to EO/MU/2026/3391 dated 9 April 2026, being an order of resumption of the site or building and forfeiture of a part of the consideration money under section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, passed in respect of the property described in the Schedule at the foot of this memorandum.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
- WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS, AND WHY IT IS ADDRESSED TO THIS AUTHORITY AND NOT ANOTHER.
This document is presented as: MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE CAPITAL OF PUNJAB (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1952. In it, the person presenting it is called "the appellant", and where this document is a revision that expression means the petitioner in revision; the property described in the Schedule is called "the said property"; the order challenged is called "the impugned order"; the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 is called "the Act"; and the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 are called "the 2007 Rules".
The forum is fixed by statute. It is not a matter of preference or of convenience, and the appellant has satisfied himself or herself of it before addressing this document. The position is as follows.
(a) An order of the Estate Officer made under section 8 or section 8-A of the Act is appealable to the Chief Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, within thirty days of the date of communication of that order, under section 10(1) of the Act.
(b) An order of the Estate Officer, or of any other competent authority, made under the 2007 Rules is appealable to the Chief Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, within thirty days of the date of communication of that order, under Rule 18(i) of the 2007 Rules.
(c) A revision against an order of the Chief Administrator passed in a matter arising under section 8 or section 8-A of the Act lies to the Central Government under section 10(4) of the Act, and is addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Union Territories Division), North Block, Central Secretariat.
(d) A revision against an order of the Chief Administrator passed under the 2007 Rules lies to the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, under Rule 18(iv) of the 2007 Rules, and must likewise be made in writing within thirty days of the date of communication of that order.
(e) Those two revisional authorities are different authorities. Which of them has jurisdiction turns on whether the order in the first appeal was made under the Act or under the 2007 Rules, and on nothing else. A revision presented to the wrong one is liable to be returned unheard, and the thirty days continue to run while it is being returned. Where the impugned order rests on both the Act and the 2007 Rules, the appellant states so expressly in paragraph 4 below so that the question of jurisdiction is raised at the threshold rather than at the end.
(f) THE HEADING AND THE ADDRESSEE ARE A MATCHED PAIR, AND THERE ARE ONLY FOUR OF THEM. The heading at the top of this page names the provision under which this document is presented. The authority named immediately beneath it must be the authority that provision gives. The four permitted pairs are: an appeal under section 10(1) of the Act, to the Chief Administrator; an appeal under Rule 18(i) of the 2007 Rules, to the Chief Administrator; a revision under section 10(4) of the Act, to the Central Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs; and a revision under Rule 18(iv) of the 2007 Rules, to the Adviser to the Administrator. There is no fifth pair. If the heading of this document and the authority named beneath it are not one of those four, this document has been mis-addressed, and it must be corrected before it is presented at any counter.
(g) The Chief Administrator may in addition, of his own motion or on an application, call for the record of any proceeding in which the Estate Officer has passed an order, in order to satisfy himself as to its legality or propriety, under section 10(3) of the Act and Rule 18(iii) of the 2007 Rules; and no order prejudicial to any person may be passed in that exercise without giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(h) Section 19 of the Act bars every court from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of the recovery of any arrears or penalty under section 8, the resumption of any site or building under section 8-A, the forfeiture of any money under that section, or any order made in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act. This statutory ladder is therefore the appellant's only remedy, and a step in it that is abandoned or allowed to lapse is a remedy lost, not a remedy postponed.
- WHO THE APPELLANT IS.
The appellant is the allottee of the said property.
Identity relied upon: Passport No. Z1234567 issued at Chandigarh.
Address at which notice of hearing and every order in this matter may be served: House No. 1234, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh 160019.
Mobile: +91 XXXXX XXXXX
Email: hsbedi@example.com
JOINT HOLDERS. The said property is held jointly. Manjit Kaur Bedi, wife of Sh. Harjinder Singh Bedi, resident of House No. 1234, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh 160019, joins in this document as a co-appellant, has signed it at the foot, has verified it separately, and has sworn the separate affidavit printed at the end of this document. Every joint holder joins, because an order against a Chandigarh site or building operates against the whole of it, and a challenge by one of several joint holders leaves the impugned order standing against the shares of the others.
REPRESENTATION. The appellant appears through Sh. Rajeev Khanna, Advocate, Chamber No. 214, District Courts, Sector 43, Chandigarh, Advocate, and a vakalatnama executed by the appellant and accepted by the said Advocate is filed with this document. The appellant will nevertheless remain personally available for any hearing at which personal presence is directed.
- THE SAID PROPERTY.
House No. 1234, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, measuring 500 square yards (10 Marla), comprising a ground floor, first floor and barsati, together with the garage on the rear of the site, allotted as a residential site.
Tenure on the records of the office: Leasehold.
The said property was allotted, transferred or conveyed by or under Allotment Letter No. EO/SS/2003/4567 issued by the Estate Officer dated 1 April 2026.
Property identification or account number on the records of the office: EO/27B/1234.
In Chandigarh the allotment file of the Estate Officer is itself the record of title to a sector property. There is no jamabandi, no Halqa Patwari and no Tehsildar mutation for such a property, and the consequence of an order of resumption, cancellation or forfeiture is therefore immediate and total: it operates on the very record that constitutes the appellant's title. That is why this challenge is preferred at once, and why interim protection is asked for below wherever the impugned order threatens anything immediate.
- THE IMPUGNED ORDER.
Number and date: EO/MU/2026/3391 dated 9 April 2026.
Nature of the order: an order of resumption of the site or building and forfeiture of a part of the consideration money under section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.
What the order directs, reproduced from its operative part:
The site in question is hereby resumed under section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and 10% of the total consideration money together with interest and other dues is ordered to be forfeited. The allottee shall hand over vacant possession within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which possession shall be taken over with police assistance.
The impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 6 April 2026, by registered post with acknowledgement due. A certified or attested copy of the impugned order, and proof of the date of its communication, are filed with this document, because the thirty-day period prescribed by section 10(1) of the Act and by Rule 18(i) of the 2007 Rules runs from the date of communication and not from the date the order bears.
Money demanded by or under the impugned order: Rs 14,40,000. The appellant disputes the demand both as to liability and as to quantification, and nothing in this document is an admission of any part of it.