Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikramjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ... on 10 November, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Writ Petition No. 21794 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Writ Petition No. 21794 of 2008
Date of Decision: 10.11.2009
Vikramjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. D.K. Gopal, Advocate
for Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate
for Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5.
Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
On 3.11.2009, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioner submits that all violations have been cured and now the building on site is in consonance with the requirements of the Chandigarh Administration.
Ms. Deepali Puri, counsel appearing for respondent No.4, undertakes to carry fresh inspection and to submit report to this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner has further Civil Writ Petition No. 21794 of 2008 2 stated that in case violations have not been cured, she will not pursue the present writ petition.
List again on 10.11.2009".
Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4, states that in pursuance of order dated 3.11.2009, inspection has been carried and no violation has been found and at present site in question is in consonance with the terms & conditions of the allotment letter and rules prescribed by the respondents.
Taking the statement of Ms. Puri into consideration, it will be necessary to notice the facts of the case. Petitioner is a Slum Dweller. For rehabilitation of the Slum Dwellers, Chandigarh Administration framed out Scheme called Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Scheme 1979") Petitioner was allotted site No. 1889 in Rehabilitation Colony, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh, in lieu of Jhuggi (Hut) No. 52, Labour Colony, Sector 31, Chandigarh. On 8.10.2002, Municipal Corporation, to whom this Scheme was transferred, issued notice to the petitioner and stated therein that a survey was conducted and it was found that petitioner had constructed third storey level and unauthorized cantilever of size 10' X 3' on first and second floor in contravention of building plan approved by the Chandigarh Administration and, therefore, the allotment made to him is cancelled and the licence issued in favour of the petitioner under the Scheme 1979 is revoked. Thereafter, notice was issued under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Notice is attached as Annexure P2. Eviction order was passed, which was challenged by the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 21794 of 2008 3 before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, praying that cancellation of the allotment and revocation of the licence be set aside. The appeal was dismissed holding that the same is time barred. Petitioner had annexed photographs to contend that entire violation has been removed and the structure has been demolished and now the building premises is in consonance with the requirements of the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench order passed by this Court in case Shiv Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 4131 of 2003, decided on 6.2.2006) where the resumed tenement was restored on the ground that building violations have been removed. This Court cannot formulate the view different than the view formulated by a Division Bench of this Court.
Hence, the present petition is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside and the tenement is restored to the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, possession of the premises be restored to the petitioner.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 10, 2009 "DK"