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


Ramgaria Sabha v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors - CWP-14036-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5851 (23 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 14036 OF 2005 [1]


* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 14036 OF 2005

Date of decision : July 13, 2006

* * * * *

Ramgaria Sabha ..........Petitioner


Union Territory, Chandigarh & others ...........Respondents * * * * *


Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. K.K Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner before this Court is Ramgaria Sabha. It has challenged the orders dated August 22, 2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh whereby the premises of the petitioner has been ordered to be resumed on account of certain building violations and the order dated April 6, 2005 (Annexure P-10) whereby the Review petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

At the outset, Sh. Gurminder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that all the building violations which were not sanctionable in accordance with the policies/articles had already been C.W.P NO. 14036 OF 2005 [2]

removed by the petitioner and only such construction remains which is duly sanctionable. Sh. Gurminder Singh, learned counsel also informs the court that the revised building plans have already been submitted by the petitioner-Sabha but the necessary approval has not been granted only on account of the fact that the building in question already stands resumed.

On the other hand, Sh. K.K Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that after the resumption of the site in question, the revised building plans submitted by the petitioner-Sabha could not be taken into consideration and no approval could have been granted.

In view of the stand taken by the petitioner-Sabha that all the building violations stand already removed, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Assistant Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh (Exercising powers of Estate Officer) to enquire into the matter and find out as to whether any building violations which are not sanctionable still exist at the site in question. If on such enquiry, the Assistant Estate Officer finds that all the building violations which are not sanctionable have already been removed by the petitioner and only such building violations which are sanctionable remain at the spot, then further necessary action for approval of the revised building plans shall be taken by the competent authority. In such a situation, the resumption order passed against the petitioner-Sabha shall be treated as nonest.

The petitioner-Sabha shall appear before the Assistant Estate Officer, U.T, Chandigarh on August 1, 2006 at 10:00A.M. We further direct that in case it is found that only such violations remain at the site which are sanctionable/compoundable then the Assistant Estate Officer shall issue a written communication to the petitioner-Sabha requiring it to C.W.P NO. 14036 OF 2005 [3]

deposit the necessary compounding fee and other charges. On the receipt of the aforesaid communication the requisite charges/compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three weeks of receipt of the aforesaid application.

We, however, make it clear that in case it is concluded by the Assistant Estate Officer that building violations which are not sanctionable still remain at the site then the Assistant Estate Officer shall require the petitioner to remove the aforesaid violations within three weeks from the receipt of communication. If the said violations are not removed within the aforesaid period of three weeks then in such a situation the resumption order passed against the petitioner shall stand revived and in those circumstances, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

It is further directed that till the matter is finally decided by the Estate Officer, the eviction order passed by respondent no.4 shall also remain in abeyance.

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



July 11, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu 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.