Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudeep Mahajan Etc vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Others on 27 August, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kuldip Singh
CWP No. 8209 of 2014 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8209 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 27, 2014
Sudeep Mahajan ....Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Petitioner in person.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate of this Court, has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the amendment in the Zoning Plan of Sector 36-D, Chandigarh vide Notification dated 9.11.2005.
The petitioner claims to be owner of a 2 kanal house on plot No. 1546, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Administration has permitted construction of a double storey servant quarters i.e. upto the 1 st level in Phase-II Sectors of Chandigarh vide Notification dated 9.11.2005 amending DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.27 11:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 8209 of 2014 (O&M) [2] the earlier Zoning Plan dated 17.9.1968. The grievance of the petitioner is that by amending the Zoning Plan, the Administration has permitted the construction of double storey servant quarters, which will invade the privacy of the inmates in the vicinity of such double storey servant quarters. The petitioner also challenges such amendment on account of the potential of misuse of the servant quarters by letting them out to Paying Guests, which invariably raises the noise level and often leads to hooliganism in the area.
Though the petitioner has made multiple references to the Chandigarh Administration to seek information in respect of the permission to raise the height of the area of the servant quarters, however, such fact loose significance in view of the directions issued by the Chief Administrator under Section 4 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short `the Act' on 26.2.2002. The relevant extracts from the said notification would read as under:-
"In Phase-II Sectors in 2 kanal houses zoning for servant quarters shall be allowed as in the case of zoning in Phase-I sectors except in house abutting V3 road, where at least a minimum 15'-9" wide space shall be left open between proposed servant blocks and the rear boundary wall to maintain a uniform street picture."
In terms of such clause, the Zoning Plan has been amended, which has been approved by the Finance Secretary on 20.9.2005. The relevant Note in the Zoning Plan, attached by the petitioner with the writ petition as Annexure P.15, reads as under:-
"As per Notification dated 26.2.2002 under para No. 6, the additional zoned area for servant quarter in two kanal houses in Phase-II Sector has been allowed as marked [-----] of height 24'-9" on this plan, in view of amendments approved by the Finance Secretary's Memo No. 1849-UTF1(3)-2005/6718 dated 20.9.2005."
DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.27 11:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 8209 of 2014 (O&M) [3] A perusal of the directions (Annexure P.17) shows that the Zoning Plan for servant quarters in 2 kanal house in Phase-II Sectors of Chandigarh was allowed as in zoning in respect of houses in Phase-I Sectors. The zoning for the houses in Phase I was approved on 8.1.2001, which was published in the Chandigarh Administration Extraordinary Gazette on 22.1.2001. The relevant extracts from the Gazette read as under:-
"In continuation of Chief Administrator's Office order dated 23rd July, 1992 issued - vide the endorsement No. 30/18/UTI/CHD/92/6790 dated 23rd July, 1992 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, hereby orders that the height of annexe of 1 kanal houses and above in Phase I sectors shall be increased upto the maximum height of 24' - 9" in the single storey zone for construction of double storey buildings."
The argument of the petitioner is that no height has been specified in direction No.6 in the Notification dated 26.2.2012 (Annexure P.17), whereas the same has been mentioned in the Zoning Plan without any authority of law. It is also argued that on account of the amended Zoning Plan, there is threat to the privacy of the petitioner as such user has the potential of becoming a source of nuisance and hooliganism. It is also argued that the servant quarters of the adjoining plots share a common wall, therefore, such common wall, which is not a load bearing wall, may not take the burden of two storey adjoining buildings.
We have heard the petitioner and find no merit in the present writ petition.
Direction No. 6 contained in Annexure P.17, permits the DALBIR SINGH zoning of servant quarters as in the case of zoning in Phase-I Sectors. 2014.08.27 11:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 8209 of 2014 (O&M) [4] The house of the petitioner falls in Phase-II Sectors of Chandigarh, whereas in respect of Phase-I, the notification permits that the height of the annexe of 1 kanal house or above shall be increased upto the maximum height of 24' - 9" in the single storey zone for construction of double storey buildings. The zoning has been changed to permit double storey construction on the single storey zone to facilitate the ever increasing demands of the inhabitants of the city and at the same time maintain a uniform pattern. What kind of construction should be permitted in Chandigarh urban area is for the experts to decide. If the experts have decided to permit construction of double storey building on a single storey zone, the same cannot be said to be invalid or arbitrary. The argument of the petitioner preceded on the basis that the height has not been prescribed but such height has been prescribed in the Notification dated 26.2.2002. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the amendment in the zoning to prescribe height of the servant quarters as 24'-9". Such direction has been issued in exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the Chief Administrator under Section 4 of the Act. Such directions do not contravene any statute or the Rules framed under the statute.
The other arguments that the amendment in the Zoning Plan invades the right of privacy or that the occupants of the house will use the servant quarters for letting out the same to the paying guests; the noise level will increase and that there will be hooliganism, are the matters which are in the realm of conjectures. If the noise level increases and there is hooliganism, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under the Civil Law as well. The right of privacy is not an absolute right. The perception of privacy differs from person to person. Once uniform Rules have been framed for all owners, the DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.27 11:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 8209 of 2014 (O&M) [5] same cannot be said to be invalid for the reason that one of the occupants feels threats to his privacy.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same accordingly dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE August 27, 2014 ds DALBIR SINGH 2014.08.27 11:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh