Baldhir Singh vs Union Territory Administration Chandigarh and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 9.7.1982 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, whereby the SCO Site No. 1040-41, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh was ordered to be resumed u/s 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Dev. And Regd.) Act, 1952 on the ground of building violations as mentioned in order dated 9.7.1982. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.9.1984 and 25.4.1990 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) whereby the appeal and revision against the said order has also been dismissed. While admitting the writ petition, the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. When the present writ petition was taken up for regular hearing, Counsel for Chandigarh Administration suggested for inspection of the building by the Department in order to know that the violations are compoundable or not. On May 20, 2011, the following order was passed by this Court:

Learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 13.05.2011 has furnished a status report in reference to the nature of violations that are still compoundable at the property which is the subject matter of resumption. The report is taken on record.

It points out that there are atleast 7 violations which have been previously pointed out, out of which 3 have been set right and out of remaining 4 violations, 3 are sanctionable subject to building plan and 1 is non-sanctionable.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is living abroad and it is the tenants who are responsible for making some alterations without any authority from the landlord, which was exposed the landlord to the risk of the property being resumed. He seeks time for taking corrective steps to ensure that no violations exist.

Adjourned to 18.07.2011.

The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit in Court removing the non-sanctionable violations and also take corrective step to supply revised plans that would conform the building plans. The affidavit shall also contain details of action taken as well as undertaking that if the violations complained of are not removed or not sanctioned to the extent to which it is permissible, the petitioner would be liable for appropriate action of resumption. Affidavit setting out the above details be filed before the next date of hearing.

In compliance of the said order, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 19.7.2011, and thereupon the following order was passed on 20.7.2011:

Affidavit in terms of order dated 20.5.2011 has been filed in Court, the same is taken on the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has approached the respondents for revised building plan, however, the respondents refused to accept the same on the plea that the matter is Subjudice.

From perusal of the order dated 20.5.20-11, it appears that the petitioner was ready to remove the non-sanctionable violations and also taken corrective steps to supply revised plan.

In view of the above observation, the respondents are directed to accept the revised building from the petitioner, process and consider the same in accordance with the rules.

Let process of consideration be completed within a period of four week.

Let the final opinion be filed by the respondents on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 29.8.2011.

Today when the case has been taken up for regular hearing, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents stated that the revised building plan submitted by the petitioner was sanctioned vide Office Memo No. 90283 dated 17.2.2012 and according to those sanctioned building plan, some of the violations has been set right by the petitioner and some have been covered by the revised building plan.

Learned counsel for respondents on instructions and latest inspection report dated 1.8.2013 stated that now there is no building violation in the premises in question and all those violations which are made contrary to the building plan have been removed/sanctioned.

In view of these facts that all the violations have been removed or got sanctioned and further in view of the law laid down in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Others, and Ram Puri Vs. U.T. Chandigarh, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana, 301, we are of the opinion that resumption order is liable to be set aside.

Consequently the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. No orders as to costs.