Chandigarh Administration and another vs Mrs. Harinder Pannu

R. S. Mongia, J.—This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed on behalf of Chandigarh Administration, against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 3rd February, 1989, accepting the writ petition of respondent (writ petitioner) Mrs. Harinder Pannu, by which it was held that the action of the appellants in demolishing a portion of the stores in House No. 31, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, owned by the respondent, was illegal and that the respondent was entitled to reconstruct the demolished portion at her own costs.

Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent is the owner of House No. 31, Sector 8A, Chandigarh. She was issued a notice dated 17th September, 1982 (Annexure P-1) by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, u/s 15 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, mentioning therein that she had construed temporary stores in the court-yard of the house, in contravention of R. 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952, she was asked to demolish the aforesaid unauthorised construction with 15 days of the issue of the notice. Reply was given to the said notice that she could not be asked to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction. However, an order dated 17th August, 1983 was issued by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordering the demolition of the unauthorised construction. However, no action was taken till 23rd December, 1986, when the alleged unauthorised construction was demolished. The respondent, Mrs. Harinder Pannu filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Chandigarh Administration in demolishing the so-called unauthorised construction.

The only argument which was addressed before the learned single Judge and which prevailed before him was that proviso to R. 15 of the 1952 Rules provides that the Chief Administrator can require the building erected in contravention of building Rules to be altered or demolished by a written notice delivered to the owner thereof within six months of its having begun or having been completed and since in the present case the notice for demolition was admittedly after six months of the completion of the alleged unauthorised construction, the same could not be ordered to be demolished, but the alleged illegal construction in contravention of the rules could only be compounded.

In the present case, the Building Inspector on 15th March, 1982, reported regarding the alleged unauthorised construction and it was mentioned in his report, a copy of which is attached as Annexure R-1, that the construction appears to be less than six months'' old. The notice for demolition was issued on 17th September, 1982. Admittedly, the notice issued was after six months of the construction inasmuch as even the report regarding the alleged unauthorised construction was made on 15th March, 1982, Proviso to R. 15 of the 1952 Rules may be noticed :--

"Provided that if a building is begun, erected or re-erected in contravention of any of the building rules, the Chief Administrator shall be competent to require the building to be altered or demolished by a written notice delivered to the owner thereof within six months of its having begun or having been completed, as the case may be. Such notice shall also specify the period during which such alteration or demolition has to be completed and if the notice is not complied with, the Chief Administrator shall be competent to demolish the said building at the expense of the owner."

It is apparent from the above proviso that notice is to be issued within six months of the alleged unauthorised construction, the starting point being as to when the alleged construction had begun or completed as the case may be. That being the position in law, no notice could have been issued to the writ petitioner for demolition after the six months of the construction. The learned single Judge has correctly held that the demolition on the basis of such a notice was illegal. The learned single Judge in his judgment has observed "that by lapse of time, the construction stood impliedly compounded and legalised". We may make it clear that this does not mean that the writ petitioner is not to pay any compounding fee for the unauthorised construction. The department will be entitled to charge the compounding fee as if the construction had been made in the year 1982.

Subject to the observations made above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.