{"id":190619,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-13T09:05:41","modified_gmt":"2018-06-13T03:35:41","slug":"the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n
CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                    1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                  CWP No. 9917 of 2008\n\n                                  Date of decision:   11.11.2011\n\n\nThe Defence Colony Residents Society (Registered), Jalandhar\n\n\n                                             ......PETITIONER\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n\nState of Punjab and others\n                                             ..... RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE\n      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH\n\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate,\n          for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. R.S. Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab.\n\n            Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate,\n            for respondents No. 2 to 4.\n\n            Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate,\n            with Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate,\n            for respondent No. 5.\n\n            ***\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the<\/p>\n
residents   of the Defence Colony Area of Jalandhar through the<\/p>\n
Defence Colony Residents Society (Registered) alleging that the<\/p>\n
sanction has been granted by respondents No. 1 to 4 to M\/s Radhey
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Buildwell Private Limited-respondent No. 5 to construct a multiplex<\/p>\n
building\/shopping mall on Cantt. Road, Jalandhar, a residential area,<\/p>\n
which is surrounded by residential houses and is not permissible.<\/p>\n
             It is the contention of the petitioners that the sanction,<\/p>\n
which has been granted to respondent No. 5, could not be issued<\/p>\n
despite it being on a non-scheme area since this area is primarily a<\/p>\n
residential area and across the Cantt. Road, also it is only an<\/p>\n
institutional area where no commercial activity is being carried out<\/p>\n
nor can it be permitted. The Cantt. Road has not been declared a<\/p>\n
commercial road and, therefore, the sanction granted cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n
             M\/s Radhey Buildwell Private Limited-Respondent No. 5,<\/p>\n
vide application No. 1137 dated 19.02.2007, applied for sanction of<\/p>\n
building plan on the plot owned by it for setting up a shopping mall.<\/p>\n
On consideration of the application of respondent No. 5, the same<\/p>\n
was recommended to the Government for technical approval on<\/p>\n
20.03.2007. The same was considered by the Chief Town Planner,<\/p>\n
Department of Local Government and vide letter dated 12.08.2007<\/p>\n
addressed to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar-<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 conveyed that it is not advisable to allow the<\/p>\n
proposed commercial construction on the site in question as the site<\/p>\n
was adjoining to the Defence Colony, which is a Development<\/p>\n
Scheme and the houses on the road are residential and no<\/p>\n
commercial construction has been approved on this stretch of road.<\/p>\n
This communication, on receipt by the Municipal Corporation,
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
Jalandhar, was forwarded to respondent No. 5 by the Municipal Town<\/p>\n
Planner who conveyed that the approval for commercial activity<\/p>\n
cannot be granted on the plot.\n<\/p>\n
             On receipt of this communication from the Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation, Jalandhar, respondent No. 5 submitted a letter dated<\/p>\n
23.08.2007 stating therein that the proposed commercial complex is<\/p>\n
situated on Cantt. Road, which is a non-scheme area with other<\/p>\n
institutional buildings like college, school buildings existing in the<\/p>\n
area. The back side of the site is adjoining defence colony area,<\/p>\n
which does not face it and there is no direct approach to the site from<\/p>\n
the defence colony side. On this representation, the comments were<\/p>\n
sought by the Chief Town Planner, Department of Local Government,<\/p>\n
Punjab, vide his letter dated 06.09.2007, from the Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation,    Jalandhar.          In    response   thereto,       the   Joint<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, vide his letter<\/p>\n
dated 19.09.2007, confirmed the facts as stated by respondent No. 3<\/p>\n
that the plot does not fall under any scheme and thus, it is in a non-<\/p>\n
scheme area.         No entry or exit of the site is shown in the map<\/p>\n
towards the road on the defence colony plots and the approach of<\/p>\n
the site is shown towards the Cantt. Road side. Thereafter, the Chief<\/p>\n
Town Planner, Department of Local Government, Punjab, addressed<\/p>\n
a   letter   dated     28.11.2007    to   the   Commissioner,        Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation, Jalandhar requesting therein that a specific report be<\/p>\n
sent with clear-cut recommendations, whether commercial building<\/p>\n
on the site in question should be permitted or not as per ground
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
situation so that the matter could be reconsidered by the<\/p>\n
Government. In response to this letter, reply was sent the same day<\/p>\n
by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, giving the<\/p>\n
earlier details and further stating that there is no hesitation to pass<\/p>\n
the map as commercial. On the basis of this response, technical<\/p>\n
clearance was granted by the Government on 07.12.2007 and relying<\/p>\n
thereon, the Sub-Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar,<\/p>\n
considered     the    application   dated   19.02.2007   submitted   by<\/p>\n
respondent No. 5 for approval of the building plan and granted<\/p>\n
sanction on 14.02.2008. Letter dated 15.02.2008 communicating the<\/p>\n
sanction along with the terms and conditions, which respondent No.<\/p>\n
5 was required to comply with, was issued by the Commissioner,<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar.\n<\/p>\n
             The petitioner, in this writ petition, has proceeded on the<\/p>\n
assumption     that   letter   dated   28.11.2007   addressed   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, to the Chief Town<\/p>\n
Planner, Department of Local Government, Punjab, was the sanction<\/p>\n
granted to respondent No. 5 and, therefore, challenged the same<\/p>\n
through the present writ petition. It was alleged that the construction<\/p>\n
had been started by respondent No. 5 and, therefore, prayed for the<\/p>\n
stay.\n<\/p>\n
             The case came up for hearing before this Court on<\/p>\n
30.05.2008 when this Court directed respondent No. 5 not to effect<\/p>\n
construction on the site in question and respondents No. 1 to 4 to<\/p>\n
ensure that no such construction activity is carried out on the site in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
             Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the<\/p>\n
respondents. Respondent No. 1-State of Punjab has submitted in its<\/p>\n
reply that there are two types of areas\/colonies within the municipal<\/p>\n
boundary; (a) the colonies\/areas, which have been developed under<\/p>\n
any law of the State such as Development Scheme framed under the<\/p>\n
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, Urban Estates developed<\/p>\n
under the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act,<\/p>\n
1964, Colonies developed under the License given under Punjab<\/p>\n
Apartments and Property Regulation Act, 1995, Focal Points under<\/p>\n
the Punjab State Industrial Export Corporation and the Town<\/p>\n
Planning and Building Schemes framed under Section 275 of the<\/p>\n
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, are known as Scheme<\/p>\n
Areas and (b) the other areas are termed as Non-Scheme Areas. In<\/p>\n
the Scheme Areas, land use of the plots\/lands is duly defined while<\/p>\n
sanctioning the relevant scheme and erection\/re-erection of buildings<\/p>\n
in such scheme areas is regulated in accordance with the Schedule<\/p>\n
of Clauses of the concerned sanctioned scheme. The erection\/re-<\/p>\n
erection of the buildings in the areas other than the Scheme Areas is<\/p>\n
regulated as per the provisions of the Municipal Building Bye-laws<\/p>\n
regarding residential, commercial, industrial or institutional buildings.<\/p>\n
Since the site in question falls in a non-scheme area,         Municipal<\/p>\n
Building Bye-laws would be applicable.        Since respondent No. 5<\/p>\n
fulfilled the required Bye-Laws, sanction has been granted by the<\/p>\n
Government to the building plan for commercial purposes. Earlier<\/p>\n
since the building was shown to be surrounded by the residential
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
buildings and was adjacent to the Defence Colony, which was<\/p>\n
developed under the Improvement Trust Scheme, Government<\/p>\n
deemed it proper to advise, vide letter dated 01.08.2007, not to<\/p>\n
sanction the commercial plan. However, subsequently when it was<\/p>\n
brought to the notice of the Government that it is a non-scheme area<\/p>\n
and was situated on 160′ wide main road called the Cantt. Road and<\/p>\n
there were other institutional and commercial buildings existing on<\/p>\n
the road, technical clearance was granted by the Government vide<\/p>\n
letter dated 07.12.2007 subject to compliance of the parameters<\/p>\n
mentioned therein. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner<\/p>\n
has not challenged the letter dated 15.02.2008 issued by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, therefore, the writ<\/p>\n
petition deserved to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
            Respondent No. 4-Municipal Town Planner, Jalandhar<\/p>\n
has almost towed the same line as respondent No. 1 except stating<\/p>\n
that the site in question is situated on the Cantt. Road, which is a<\/p>\n
busy main street of the town,      upon which many institutional and<\/p>\n
commercial buildings are situated such as Khalsa College for Girls,<\/p>\n
Atwal House Market, St. Joseph’s School, North India Section of 7th<\/p>\n
Adventists School with structure for living quarters and Ruby Nelson<\/p>\n
Memorial Hospital etc.<\/p>\n
             Respondent No. 1, in its reply, has pleaded that the<\/p>\n
petition is not within the ambit of the Public Interest Litigation and the<\/p>\n
President of the Society has sought to settle his personal vendata<\/p>\n
against respondent No. 5. The plot in dispute was earlier a factory of
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
one Gopal Singh. It being an industrial plot, its user can be easily<\/p>\n
changed into commercial. There is no residential house in front of<\/p>\n
the site of respondent No. 5 and across the road, there are colleges,<\/p>\n
hospitals and other institutional establishments. It is denied that the<\/p>\n
plot of the petitioner is situated within the vicinity of the residential<\/p>\n
area. The contentions, as raised by respondent No. 1, have also<\/p>\n
been pleaded and put forth by respondent No. 5 in its reply.<\/p>\n
           When the case came up for hearing before this Court on<\/p>\n
14.11.2008, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, an<\/p>\n
agreed order was passed by the Court appointing Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Jalandhar, as Commissioner, to be assisted by the<\/p>\n
District Town Planner, Jalandhar to submit a report after proper site<\/p>\n
inspection on Cantonment Road, Jalandhar, indicating whether and if<\/p>\n
so the kind of establishments that exist on either side of the said<\/p>\n
road. This was done in order to facilitate proper adjudication of the<\/p>\n
matter as to whether the area is residential or commercial or non-<\/p>\n
scheme mixed use area.\n<\/p>\n
           The Commissioner submitted his report on 15.12.2008.<\/p>\n
Paras 3 and 4 of the said report read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “3.         It is hereby submitted that the site in dispute<\/p>\n
            which is situated on the Cantonment Road, Jalandhar,<\/p>\n
            towards the Western side of the site, there is residential<\/p>\n
            house bearing No. 17 and the said house, as per<\/p>\n
            respectables, it was that of one Mangat Singh and
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
        towards the Eastern side, there is a vacant plot. In front<\/p>\n
        of the site in question, a road i.e. towards North is<\/p>\n
        passing and on the north side of the road, there is a small<\/p>\n
        park and the boundary wall of Layallpur Khalsa College<\/p>\n
        for Women is abutting the said small park.          K.C.L.<\/p>\n
        Institute of Law has been newly constructed and the<\/p>\n
        building is five storeyed which is by the side of Layallpur<\/p>\n
        Khalsa College for Women towards the east of the said<\/p>\n
        college. The residential houses have been constructed<\/p>\n
        towards the southern side of the site in question and the<\/p>\n
        people are residing therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.         Towards the Southern side of the property in<\/p>\n
        question, a residential house No. 18 of the Defence<\/p>\n
        Colony has been constructed. After seeing the site and<\/p>\n
        the establishments on the either side of the property in<\/p>\n
        question, it has been found that the residential houses<\/p>\n
        have been constructed towards the western side and on<\/p>\n
        the southern side of the site in question, whereas on the<\/p>\n
        eastern side, there was a vacant plot. Myself and the<\/p>\n
        District Town Planner along with respectables have seen<\/p>\n
        the establishment on road which is passing in front of the<\/p>\n
        property in question and it was found that the residential<\/p>\n
        houses which are situated in the Defence Colony have<\/p>\n
        been constructed on the side on which the property in<\/p>\n
        question is situated, whereas towards the northern side<\/p>\n
        after K.C.L. Institute of Law, Ruby Nelson Memorial
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
            Hospital has been constructed and thereafter Church and<\/p>\n
            School namely North India Section of 7th Adventists with<\/p>\n
            structure for living quarters, whereas after the residential<\/p>\n
            houses in the Defence Colony abutting the main road on<\/p>\n
            which the property in question is situated, a building of<\/p>\n
            St. Joseph’s Convent School is existing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           To this report, objections have been filed through<\/p>\n
additional affidavit on 17.02.2009 by respondent No. 5, wherein it has<\/p>\n
been alleged that the Commissioner did not intimate respondent No.<\/p>\n
5 as to the date\/time of the said visit. It was done in the presence of<\/p>\n
the residents of the Defence Colony alone.       The report does not<\/p>\n
mention the shops, which are available and functioning on Cantt.<\/p>\n
Road even though in the site plan attached with the report, the shops<\/p>\n
are shown. On the northern side of the site, M\/s K.C.L. Institute of<\/p>\n
Law, which is a newly constructed five storeyed building by the side<\/p>\n
of Layyalpur Khalsa College for Women, has been shown.<\/p>\n
Photographs have been attached with the affidavit to show other<\/p>\n
commercial activities, which are being carried out in the residential<\/p>\n
area of the colony and in Atwal Colony (Saundh Complex). Site plan<\/p>\n
has also been attached with the affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
           In response to this affidavit, petitioner has also filed an<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 18.03.2007, wherein it has been mentioned that M\/s<\/p>\n
K.C.L. Institute of Law has been constructed in the existing premises<\/p>\n
of Khalsa College for Women, which has a common entrance from
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
the G.T. Road. Besides the commercial activities, photographs have<\/p>\n
been attached with the affidavit. They are inside the Atwal house<\/p>\n
locality and not of the Cantt. Road. The other commercial activities<\/p>\n
are not sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and are being run<\/p>\n
illegally. As regards the shop located on the Garha Road, which is a<\/p>\n
declared commercial road, no objection can be raised.            Apart<\/p>\n
therefrom, the booths, which have been mentioned in the Defence<\/p>\n
Colony market, are Government approved booths and there are few<\/p>\n
small shops, Doctors’ clinics, which have been shown in the<\/p>\n
photographs are being run illegally in the residential colony.<\/p>\n
           An affidavit dated 04.05.2009 has also been filed by<\/p>\n
respondent No. 5 stating therein that the site plan, which was<\/p>\n
prepared in the year 1963 for Development Scheme of 50 Acres on<\/p>\n
Cantt Road, Jalandhar (now called Defence Colony) would show that<\/p>\n
the site in dispute was a factory of Gopal Singh and rest of the land<\/p>\n
was agricultural land. Layout plan has also been placed on record of<\/p>\n
the said scheme where the site has been shown as a factory. To<\/p>\n
which it has been responded by the petitioner vide affidavit dated<\/p>\n
20.08.2009 that as per the revenue records of the years 2005 to<\/p>\n
2008, the land has been shown as gair abadi land, which cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be now an industrial area and since the area now is purely a<\/p>\n
residential and an institutional area, it cannot be converted into the<\/p>\n
commercial area.     Further, Cantt Road has not been declared a<\/p>\n
commercial road. Reference has been made to the affidavit dated<\/p>\n
18.03.2009 filed in this Court by Sh. Bhajan Singh, PSS-I, Under
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh,<\/p>\n
according to which, fourteen roads of Jalandhar have been declared<\/p>\n
as commercial, in which the present road does not find mention.<\/p>\n
           We have heard counsel for the parties, who made their<\/p>\n
submissions on the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties<\/p>\n
they represent, referred to above and with their able assistance have<\/p>\n
gone through the records of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           Dealing with the preliminary objection, which has been<\/p>\n
raised by the respondents that it is not a public interest litigation and<\/p>\n
which has been impugned in the present writ petition, is only an inter-<\/p>\n
departmental communication, wherein the Commissioner, Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation, Jalandhar has, vide his letter dated 28.11.2007,<\/p>\n
informed the Chief Town Planner, Department of Local Government,<\/p>\n
Punjab, Chandigarh that there is no hesitation to pass the map as<\/p>\n
commercial, would not be maintainable and that the sanction letter<\/p>\n
dated 15.02.2008 communicated by the Commissioner, Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation, Jalandhar, has not been impugned, needs to be dealt<\/p>\n
with by only stating that in a Public Interest Litigation, such technical<\/p>\n
objections cannot be sustained and accepted. The primary thrust<\/p>\n
and emphasis of the Court, while dealing with such like cases, is to<\/p>\n
see that justice is done to all and the basic purpose is to see that by<\/p>\n
some act or conduct of a person\/authority\/agency, the public purpose<\/p>\n
and interest is not defeated\/jeopardized.        This objection of the<\/p>\n
respondents does not carry weight and is thus, rejected.
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
              The question, which needs to be answered in this case<\/p>\n
is, whether a site, which is surrounded by residential houses on their<\/p>\n
sides, making it primarily a residential area, situated on a road which<\/p>\n
is not declared as a commercial road and across the road the area is<\/p>\n
institutional only, could be granted permission to raise a building,<\/p>\n
which is purely commercial in nature especially when no other<\/p>\n
commercial activity is      being carried out in the area or earlier<\/p>\n
permitted ?\n<\/p>\n
              It is apparent from the report of the Local Commissioner<\/p>\n
that no commercial activity is being carried out in the locality. As per<\/p>\n
the site plan attached with the report, the side of the road, on which<\/p>\n
the site in dispute is situated, is purely residential except for one<\/p>\n
school, which cannot be termed as commercial. On the opposite<\/p>\n
side of the road also, there is no commercial activity and the area is<\/p>\n
institutional in nature as there is a College, a Law Institute, a School<\/p>\n
and a Charitable Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
              The objection raised by respondent No. 5 to the report of<\/p>\n
the Local Commissioner, wherein it has been stated that commercial<\/p>\n
activities are being carried out in the area, to which it has been<\/p>\n
responded that the said activities are being carried out illegally<\/p>\n
without the permission of the Municipal Corporation and small<\/p>\n
booths, which are in the Defence Colony, are approved by the<\/p>\n
Government and none of them opens on the Cantt Road to which<\/p>\n
there is no rebuttal. If some illegal activities are being carried out in<\/p>\n
the area\/road, without the sanction of law\/authorities, that cannot be
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
made the basis to claim the same benefit by any party. Equity and<\/p>\n
discrimination cannot be pleaded and claimed in derogance to law.<\/p>\n
What was required to be submitted by the Local Commissioner was<\/p>\n
the report of the activities being carried out on the Cantt. Road.,<\/p>\n
which has been done. The report submitted by the Commissioner is<\/p>\n
in accordance with and in compliance with the order passed by this<\/p>\n
Court. In this report it has been stated that no commercial activity<\/p>\n
was being carried out on the Cantt Road, which is clear also from the<\/p>\n
site plan attached and thus, this report is accepted.<\/p>\n
           It is not in dispute that wherever the Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation and the Government found that on a particular road,<\/p>\n
commercial activity is being carried out or the area is conducive to<\/p>\n
the said purpose, that road has been declared a Commercial Road.<\/p>\n
In Jalandhar, 14 such roads were identified and declared as<\/p>\n
commercial but Cantt Road does not find mention therein. In such a<\/p>\n
situation, it cannot be said that respondent No. 5 could have been<\/p>\n
granted the permission to raise a commercial building in an area,<\/p>\n
which is primarily residential in nature with a few educational and<\/p>\n
charitable institutions running near it and that too across the road.<\/p>\n
           It is not in dispute, as is apparent from the site plans<\/p>\n
placed on record that the area and the road, on which the site in<\/p>\n
dispute is in existence, is primarily a residential area and obviously,<\/p>\n
St. Joseph’s School, which falls on the side on which the site in<\/p>\n
dispute is in existence, blends easily with the residential area. The<\/p>\n
commercial area and commercial activities are totally different and do
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
not go in tandem with the residential area as the requirements and<\/p>\n
the effects thereof are totally different.   Commercial activities and<\/p>\n
especially the shopping mall has the potential of creating nuisance if<\/p>\n
permitted in a residential area, which primarily is a calm and quite<\/p>\n
place to live in and the purpose is quite different. The serenity of the<\/p>\n
area is totally disturbed. If such like activities are permitted to be<\/p>\n
carried out, the basic concept of planning and planned development<\/p>\n
would be defeated and would create a situation, which would be<\/p>\n
chaotic. The Court cannot be a party to such chaos and confusion.<\/p>\n
           By now it is well established and accepted norm of<\/p>\n
planning and planned development that residential, commercial,<\/p>\n
institutional and industrial sectors\/areas should be separately culled<\/p>\n
out and situated in such a manner that one does not interfere with<\/p>\n
the other rather each complementing the other in a manner, which<\/p>\n
would create an atmosphere conducive to the growth and systematic<\/p>\n
progress of the society, which would be hampered if action of the<\/p>\n
authorities, as in the present case, is approved.<\/p>\n
           In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The<\/p>\n
approval granted to the building plan of respondent No. 5 by the<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, which has been communicated<\/p>\n
vide letter dated 15.02.2008, stands quashed.\n<\/p>\n
           During the course of hearing, this Court had put a<\/p>\n
question to the respondents as to why different norms have been<\/p>\n
prescribed for the scheme areas and non-scheme areas with regard<\/p>\n
to the commercial and residential areas within the municipal limits.
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                      15<\/span><\/p>\n
In response thereto, an affidavit dated 18.03.2009 has been filed by<\/p>\n
the State, wherein it has been mentioned that the Department of<\/p>\n
Local Government has prepared a proposal for amendment in the<\/p>\n
norms of commercial buildings and the same have been circulated<\/p>\n
to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporations and Regional<\/p>\n
Deputy Directors for seeking their comments on 29.12.2008 but no<\/p>\n
decision thereon has been taken as yet.\n<\/p>\n
           We are of the view that the said proposal with regard to<\/p>\n
the amendment of the Bye-Laws of the Municipal Corporation needs<\/p>\n
to be finalized at the earliest, if not done till date and accordingly,<\/p>\n
direction is issued to do the same within a period of three months.<\/p>\n
           An affidavit dated 30.09.2010 of Sh. H.S.Nanda, IAS,<\/p>\n
Special Secretary, Local Government Department, Punjab, states<\/p>\n
that the Local Government decided to make certain amendments in<\/p>\n
the existing building Bye-Laws and after incorporating the same,<\/p>\n
prepared a composite Building Bye-Laws called as “Punjab Model<\/p>\n
Building Bye-Laws, 2010” and circulated to all Urban Local Bodies<\/p>\n
vide Memo dated 23.04.2010 for taking further necessary action for<\/p>\n
notification of these Bye-Laws. The relevant extract regarding norms<\/p>\n
of construction of commercial buildings and Multiplexes in Punjab<\/p>\n
Model Building Bye-Laws, 2010 was also placed as Annexues R\/3<\/p>\n
and R\/4 respectively along with the said affidavit.<\/p>\n
           Direction is issued to the Urban Local Bodies of Punjab<\/p>\n
State to take further necessary action for notification of these Bye-<\/p>\n
Laws, if already not done, within a period of three months.
\n CWP No. 9917 of 2008                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
           As is apparent from the affidavits filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
and respondent No. 5, there are some commercial activities being<\/p>\n
carried out in the area in the form of small shops, clinics of doctors<\/p>\n
etc. in the houses illegally.   Direction is issued to the Municipal<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to look into the<\/p>\n
same and take action in accordance with law to stop such illegal<\/p>\n
activities. This exercise be completed within a period of six months.<\/p>\n
           The above directions be carried out within the time<\/p>\n
stipulated therein from the date of receipt of certified copy of this<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
( RANJAN GOGOI )                    (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )\n  CHIEF JUSTICE                             JUDGE\n\n\n\nNovember 11, 2011\npj\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 CWP No. 9917 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9917 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.11.2011 The Defence Colony Residents Society (Registered), Jalandhar ……PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Defence Colony Residents ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Defence Colony Residents ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-13T03:35:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-13T03:35:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3709,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"The Defence Colony Residents ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-13T03:35:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Defence Colony Residents ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Defence Colony Residents ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-13T03:35:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-13T03:35:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":3709,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011","name":"The Defence Colony Residents ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-13T03:35:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-defence-colony-residents-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Defence Colony Residents … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190619","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190619"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190619\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}