Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Harpreet Kaur & Ors v. Estate Officer & Anr - CWP-6666-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 2520 (24 April 2006)

C.W.P. No.6666 of 2003


C.W.P. No.6666 of 2003

Date of decision: April 27,2006

Harpreet Kaur and others V. Estate Officer and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL

Present: Shri S.K.Pipat,Sr.Advocate with Shri Surinder Gandhi,Advocate, for the petitioners.

Shri Sanjiv Sharma,Advocate, for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

This order shall dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions being C.W.P. No.6666 of 2003 and 17702 of 2003 as identical facts are involved in both these cases.

On account of the interim directions issued by this court in the aforesaid two writ petitions, the respondent-Administration deputed a competent Officer to inspect the premises of the petitioners.

Shri S.K.Pipat, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners informs the court that on inspection of the premises of the petitioners, it has been found that there were no serious building violations existing at the site and only some deviation which were sanctionable or compoundable were existed. This fact is not disputed by Shri Sanjiv Sharma,learned counsel appearing or the respondents in the two petitions.

However, Shri Sharma points out that the aforesaid building violations though sanctionable or compoundable could be so sanctioned or compounded only on submission of revised building plan by the petitioners.

Shri Sharma, at this stage, also points out that the petitioners had raised illegal constructions which were liable to be taken note of by this court.

C.W.P. No.6666 of 2003

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the controversy in question, we are satisfied that since on the inspection conducted by the Officer of the respondent-Administration, it has been found that there were no serious violations and only such violations are existing which were either sanctionable or compoundable, therefore, no further action is required to be taken against the petitioners.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petitions with a liberty to the petitioners to submit a revised building plan within a period of six weeks from the day a certified copy of this order is received. On receipt of the aforesaid revised building plan, the competent authority shall take into consideration the aforesaid revised building plan and take further action in accordance with law. The resumption order, if any, passed against the petitioners shall be treated as non-existent.

It is made clear that if the aforesaid revised building plans are not submitted within the aforesaid stipulated period, then the present writ petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.

(Viney Mittal )


April 27,2006 ( H.S.Bhalla )

sks Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.