Amit Pal Singh and Others vs The Chandigarh Administration and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The petitioners have filed the instant application after the writ petition was admitted with a prayer for staying the order of resumption dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure P-3) attached with the writ petition.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that according to the averments made by the petitioners in para 3 of the petition, there are following five violations alleged to have been committed by the petitioners :-

(a) Partitions made in the shop;

(b) Two stairs to basement provided instead of one permissible;

(c) Additional door provided in front by breaking the show window;

(d) Water tank is provided above building height;

(e) Wooden frames are provided in the front and rear elevation instead of steel frames.

3.Learned counsel has maintained that first four violations out of five, have now be- come compoundable and notification to that effect has been issued by the Union Territory Administration. The 5th violation is not compoundable but he undertakes to remove the same to the satisfaction of competent officer. The learned counsel has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Rai and Ors. v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors.1, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 775 and argued that in this case also no opportunity was granted to the petitioner therein to remove the violations to the satisfaction of the competent authorities.

From a perusal of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Rai''s case (supra), it becomes evident that although there were violations committed by the petitioner therein raising constructions in respect of the building rules and conditions of allotment yet they were given opportunity as the Chandigarh Administration had relaxed the building rules and have ordered compounding of some of the violations.

Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. Ram Kumar, Junior Engineer, Estate Office, states that the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct and all the first four violations, namely (a), (b), (c) and (d) are compoundable but the 5th one is not compoundable. However, he qualifies the statement by submitting that violations (a) and (b) are sanctionable and amended site plan has to be submitted. The learned counsel has further submitted that the building was last inspected in the year 1996 and the respondents shall be given a chance to inspect the building again and then pass an appropriate order.

In view of the aforementioned, I am satisfied that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are given one opportunity to seek compoundation of violations and remove the non-compoundable violations as per the existing policy. It is therefore, directed that the petitioners would make an application to the Competent Authority seeking permission for compounding of all the violations (a), (b), (c) and (d) and shall also give in writing that they are ready and willing to pay the compounding fee and interest as per the existing policy of the respondents. They shall also file an undertaking that the non-compoundable violations will be removed within a period of one month of the filing of undertaking. The non-compoundable violation at item No. (e) shall be re- movedby the petitioners as per the undertaking within a period of one month. The Competent Authority shall finalise the compounding fee and interest payable by the petitioners. Any other item, which may be characterised as non-compoundable by the respondents, shall be removed within a period of one month from the date of passing the order, if any. The amount of compounding fee to be ordered by the Competent Authority shall be deposited by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order along with interest etc.

In case, the aforementioned directions are complied with by the petitioners, then, the property shall remain intact and shall not be resumed by the Administration. Other- wise, the orders, Annexure P-l to P-3 shall come back into existence. The respondents shall be entitled to take possession of the property in dispute.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of this order is given dusty on payment of usual charges.