Chandigarh, Feb. 27 -- After nearly two decades of legal uncertainty, a long-drawn property misuse case in Sector 27 has finally been resolved, with the estate office setting aside resumption and penalty proceedings and granting relief to the homeowner. Exercising the powers of the estate officer, sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) (east) Khushpreet Kaur vacated a show-cause notice issued under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, bringing closure to a dispute dating back to August 21, 2006. The case pertained to alleged misuse of House No. 3, Sector 27 A, where a portion of the residential premises was being used to run "Mittal Homeo Clinic." The estate office had alleged that the clinic was operating in a residential property in violation of the conditions of allotment, as the proprietor was not residing on the premises. Vikas Jain, advocate of the complainant stated, in the reply submitted on April 3, 2007, clinic owner Suresh Rajdev clarified that the clinic occupied less than 20% of the covered area. This claim was subsequently verified by the enforcement wing, whose inspection found that the clinic occupied less than 15% of the total built-up area. Despite this, the estate office imposed a penalty of Rs.13.27 lakh in April 2012, along with interest, and initiated resumption proceedings. The owner challenged the order before the chief administrator, UT Chandigarh, who remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The case later reached the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC), which dismissed the revision petition in May 2016 but clarified the legal position. The HC observed that, under a 1996 government notification, professionals such as doctors, advocates and engineers are permitted to use up to 25% of their residential premises for professional activities. Since the clinic's area fell well within this permissible limit, the court held that resumption action was not justified. A subsequent inspection conducted on March 26, 2018, further confirmed that only 126 square feet of the ground floor was being used for the clinic, while the rest of the house continued to be used as a residence by the family. Taking into account the inspection findings, court observations and applicable rules, the estate officer ruled that no penalty was liable to be imposed and officially withdrew the 2006 show-cause notice. The case has now been consigned to records. The ruling brings long-awaited relief to the property owner and reinforces the legal protection available to professionals using limited space in their homes for consultancy, in accordance with prescribed norms....