Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJEEV KUMAR & ANOTHER versus CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjeev Kumar & another v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors - CWP-228-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5748 (21 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 228 OF 2005 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 228 OF 2005

Date of decision : July 14, 2006

* * * * *

Sanjeev Kumar & another ............Petitioners Vs.

Chandigarh Administration & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 4.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioners before this Court have challenged the order Annexure P-4 dated October 14, 2004 issued under Section 15 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby the original owner Jasbir Singh and the present petitioners have been required to remove the illegal construction raised by them on the site in question. The aforesaid notice has specifically mentioned that the aforesaid construction had been raised by the aforesaid persons in contravention of the Act and the Rules.

C.W.P NO. 228 OF 2005 [2]

The petitioners have maintained that they had purchased the site in question vide a sale deed dated October 6, 2004 and as such the construction was already existing at the site which had been raised by the original owner Jasbir Singh. On that basis, the petitioners have maintained that the aforesaid construction was not liable to be demolished.

Respondents in the written statement have mentioned that the construction raised by Jasbir Singh/petitioners was wholly illegal and unauthorised and as such notice Annexure P-4 has been issued for the demolition of the said construction. Alongwith the written statement an order dated January 10, 2005 has been appended whereby the aforesaid construction has been ordered to be demolished by the competent authority.

Vivek Suri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the fact that the construction in question exists at the spot and is unauthorised/illegal. However, he maintains that no opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the petitioners before ordering the demolition and issuing the impugned orders.

We have duly considered the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioners and find ourselves unable to agree with the same.

The present writ petition is pending since January 3, 2005. On account of the interim order passed by this Court on January 3, 2006 the demolition of the said construction was ordered to be stayed. The petitioners had ample time to remove the said construction. In any case nothing has been shown to this Court as to how and in what manner the construction raised by the petitioners was legal and was not liable to be demolished.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioners to remove the aforesaid illegal construction on or before C.W.P NO. 228 OF 2005 [3]

August 31, 2006 and restore the site to its original condition. We, further direct that if the petitioners do not remove the aforesaid illegal construction by the aforesaid stipulated date then the respondent would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and even resume the site on account of the unauthorised construction.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

July 14, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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