Vikramjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And … on 10 November, 2009

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”