HC orders CBI probe into Chandigarh's Sector 5 property case

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 30

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed for a time-bound CBI probe into a case revolving around a Sector 5 property. The Bench also made clear its intent to monitor the probe by keeping the matter pending and calling for a status report in the matter.

The dispute

The dispute pertains to house number 17, Sector 5, originally owned by Sunder Singh, who died in 1986. The matter came under judicial spotlight after the “real owner” moved the High Court claiming that an earlier petition in the matter was filed without “his consent or without having any power of attorney from him”.

The directions by the Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta were issued during the hearing of the case through video-conferencing and detailed order in the matter was yet to be uploaded.

The counsel for all parties had on October 12 submitted they had no objection to handing over the enquiry/investigation of the controversy involved in the case to the premier investigation agency.

The dispute pertains to house number 17, originally owned by Sunder Singh, who died in 1986. The matter came under judicial spotlight after the “real owner” moved the High Court claiming that an earlier petition in the matter was filed without “his consent or without having any power of attorney from him”.

The case has its genesis in the petition allegedly filed by one of Sunder Singh’s sons, Padamjit Singh, against the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents. Appearing before the Bench, the counsel had contended allegedly on the petitioner’s behalf that Padamjit Singh was having 50 per cent share in the property and no sale deed was ever executed at the instance of the petitioner or other co-sharer.

The petitioner was residing in the USA and an email was also sent, but still no action was taken. Issuing notice of motion on the petition, the Bench had ordered maintenance of “status quo as it exists” while adjourning the hearing to August 17.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, an application was moved stating that certain persons wanted to grab the property. Its owner was working with the United Nations and he was residing in the USA after retirement. The application added the writ petition had been filed without his consent.

“Chetan Mittal, senior counsel for the applicant, actual owner of the property in dispute, submits that an inquiry is required to be conducted in the case and the record of the case be kept in a sealed cover so as to avoid tempering with the record,” the Bench noted.