High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Poonam Gupta & Anr v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and - RSA-4768-2004  RD-P&H 4304 (18 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4768 of 2004
Date of Decision: 24.7.2006
Poonam Gupta and another ...Petitioners
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present: Shri Guarav Kathuria, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents.
The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit for permanent injunction, was partly decreed restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction, except in due course of law.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction raised by the plaintiffs in the area of shop/booth Nos. 84-85, 86-87 situated at Mandi Township Ballabgarh, as shown in the site plan. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have sought the standard designs for construction of the shops in basement but none was provided and, therefore, the construction of basements, cannot be said to be illegal.
On 3.3.2005, this Court directed the respondents to inform this Court whether violations have been compounded with regard to construction of basements of other buildings in Faridabad in the year 1999 and thereafter. On 11.7.2006, a policy dated 8.2.2006 has been produced RSA No. 4768 of 2004 (2)
wherein it has been provided that unauthorised construction of basements under the corridor of booths, shop-cum-flats, shop-cum-offices can be proposed to be compounded provided conditions as contained in earlier policy dated 24.10.2003 are complied with. One of the conditions that the level of the public corridors should be maintained as shown in the architectural control drawings.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the level of the public corridors is not maintained while constructing the basements as floor area of booths has been raised to 4 feet above ground level. She has shown photographs of the site in dispute, which show the construction of basement above the ground level.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court as the construction of the basements has been raised by the plaintiffs without getting the site plan sanctioned. As such, the said construction could not be compounded in terms of the policy framed by the respondents as well.
Consequently, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded, which may raise any substantial question of law for consideration in the present second appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed.
24.7.2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.