Sumit Alias Sumit Kumar v. Union Territory Chandigarh And Others

CWP-9368-2026(O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9368-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 SUMIT ALIAS SUMIT KUMAR ....Petitioner (s)

Versus

UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present:

Mr.Akinchan Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

(Through Video Conferencing).

**** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral) 1.

The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner through video conferencing submitted that the petitioner had applied to the respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh for succession of the property belonging to his father but no action has been taken by the respondents. 3.

Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent-U.T, Chandigarh submitted that so far as the transfer of ownership of the premises is concerned, the same is not permissible, since the deceased was only a licensee and not the owner of the RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.03 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-9368-2026(O&M) -2premises. He submitted that there is no provision for transfer of ownership in favour of legal heirs where the predecessor only held a licence and not ownership rights. He submitted that however the petitioner can seek transfer of the licence in his favour subject to fulfilment of the various conditions, submission of the requisite documents and payment of the requisite fee in accordance with law. He further submitted that the petitioner may at any time visit the office of the Estate Officer and further action will be taken strictly in accordance with law.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had visited the office of the Estate Officer but no action was taken in this regard. 5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i).

The petitioner shall visit the office of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 14.07.2026 at 11:00 a.m along with all the requisite documents etc.

(ii).

The Estate Officer shall consider the request of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid transfer of licence in accordance with law and thereafter shall pass an order strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner or his counsel, within a period of one month thereafter.

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 02.07.2026 rakesh Whether speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.03 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment