In a significant administrative push, the Chandigarh Estate Office has successfully disposed of a massive backlog of 1,170 long-pending cases in a drive that began in November. The resolution of these cases, achieved by December 19, marks a major step towards clearing the notorious pendency that has plagued the office for years.
A Drive Against Decades-Old Pendency
Before this special exercise was initiated, the estate office was grappling with a staggering 5,343 pending cases. The recent drive targeted this backlog systematically. Notably, more than half of the resolved cases—approximately 500—were exceptionally old, having been pending for over a decade. This highlights the scale of the historical inertia that the current effort is attempting to overcome.
The Systematic Approach: Cataloguing and Data Banking
The cleanup operation was set in motion following directives from Deputy Commissioner and Estate Officer Nishant Kumar Yadav in October. Officials were instructed to meticulously catalogue every pending case based on several critical parameters:
- The nature of the violation involved.
- The date when the initial notice was issued.
- The total duration the case had been pending.
- The specific location or sector of the property.
This detailed categorisation led to the creation of a comprehensive data bank, which became the foundation for streamlining the entire disposal process. The strategy prioritized tackling the oldest cases first, particularly those lingering for more than a year, many of which are stuck at the level of Subdivisional Magistrate (SDM) courts.
Addressing a Legacy of Delays and Discretion
The Chandigarh Estate Office has long faced public and judicial criticism for its sluggish handling of legal matters. Cases often entered a seemingly endless loop, remaining unresolved for years and passing through multiple appellate levels. This journey could include SDM courts, the office of the Chief Administrator, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and even the Supreme Court in some instances.
A senior UT official acknowledged a core institutional problem: the absence of a standardised process and fixed timelines for case disposal. This vacuum has historically led to inconsistent legal precedents and granted estate officials excessive discretionary powers, contributing further to delays and unpredictability. The current drive appears to be a direct response to these systemic flaws, aiming to inject efficiency and transparency into the office's operations.
The resolution of 1,170 cases within weeks demonstrates a committed shift. While a significant number of cases remain, this exercise sets a crucial precedent for timely governance and accountability in the administration of property and estate matters in the Union Territory.
