Dr. Vijay Namdeorao Zade, the Financial Commissioner, just reinstated and overturned the Estate Office’s directives that stated the land was undergoing resumption on Thursday while reviewing an appeal submitted by Anil Garg. The estate officer was asked to take the proper course of action as he also ordered punishment against the negligent officials.

Rameshwar Dass Garg finally gained possession of his home in Sector 37 after a 39-year battle with the Chandigarh administration’s Estate Office that claimed the lives of both his father and son. But Rameshwar’s victory comes six years after his demise and a few months after the passing of his son, Anil. After the death of her husband and father-in-law, Geeta Garg continued to work on the case.

Advertisement

When considering an appeal submitted by Anil Garg on Thursday, Financial Commissioner Dr. Vijay Namdeorao Zade just reinstated and overturned the Estate Office’s directives stating that the site was undergoing resumption. Additionally, he demanded that the estate officer fix accountability and take the proper measures against the incompetent authorities.

According to the finance secretary who in the capacity of financial commissioner passed, the allottee had periodically asked the Estate Office to inform him of the unpaid debts, and had also deposited them.

‘The Estate Office also issued no dues certificate (NDC) twice to the allottee after going through its records,’ added Zade. ‘The Estate Office also accepted the outstanding dues in respect of the house in question as reflected from the receipts.’

According to the finance secretary, the Estate Office claimed the allottee failed to deposit the forfeiture amount and 12 percent interest within the allotted time, as required by the high court. However, the Estate Office had failed to provide any documentation indicating the assignee was informed of the interest to be deposited.

The estate office’s legal representative further implied that the appellant should not suffer as a result of the estate office’s negligence and how they handled the situation that led to this dispute’s development.

Even though the appellant was not at fault for the dispute to be resolved, the commissioner stated that the appellant was ready to deposit the unpaid amount along with the interest. ‘Controversy,’ he continued, ‘the Estate Office is still reluctant to accept the same.’

Zade has restored the property to Rameshwar and instructed the Estate Office to inform the appellant of the outstanding debts and interest within 15 days of the date of this ruling. After that, according to the order, the appellant must deposit the money within the following 15 days of receiving the notification.

Vikas Jain, the attorney for the appellant, explained the situation by saying that Rameshwar Dass Garg received a leasehold allocation for the contested land. The property in question was reclaimed in 1982 due to misuse committed by the renter, according to an order from that year. Rameshwar appealed the decision against the order to the UT chief administrator. The chief administrator of UT ordered a forfeiture amount to be paid within 30 days. The victim deposited the forfeiture amount, which was accepted by the Estate Office in 1984.

Rameshwar died on 14 January 2017 at the age of 70 during the entire procedure. When Anil Garg petitioned for transfer of ownership in 2017 based on the will that Garg had written, he discovered that the plot in question was still being resumed.

Anil claimed that his father had previously paid the forfeited sum in 1984 and that the Estate Office had acknowledged that payment. He added that although his father had regularly paid all of the debts, the site in question was still being resumed. Even Anil eventually passed away in November of last year at the age of 50.