Skip to content


Present: Mr. Gautam Diwan Advocate Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others …respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantPresent: Mr. Gautam Diwan Advocate
RespondentUnion Territory, Chandigarh and Others …respondent
Excerpt:
.....versus union territory, chandigarh and others …respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal hon'ble mr.justice amol rattan singh present: mr.gautam diwan, advocate for the petitioner. mrs.jai shree thakur, advocate for u.t., chandigarh-respondents. *** satish kumar mittal, j. (oral) the petitioner who is owner in occupation of firs.and second floor of house no.407, sector-15a, chandigarh has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the order dated 14.05.2012 (annexure p-1) passed by the assistant estate officer (exercising the powers of the chief administrator).chandigarh, whereby the portion of firs.and second floor has been ordered to be demolished on the ground of certain violations of rule 5 of the capital of punjab (development and regulation).act, 1952......
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11858 of 2012 Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 Uma Kant Sood …Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present: Mr.Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

MRS.Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh-respondents.

*** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner who is owner in occupation of fiRs.and second floor of House No.407, Sector-15A, Chandigarh has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the order dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator).Chandigarh, whereby the portion of fiRs.and second floor has been ordered to be demolished on the ground of certain violations of Rule 5 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation).Act, 1952.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the order dated 14.05.2012, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard.

He further states that the violations, whatsoever, on which the portion of the house of the petitioner has been ordered to be demolished, are compoundable as per rules and regulations of the Chandigarh Administration.

It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

CWP No.11858 of 2012 -2- In view of the above, the order dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) is violative of principle of natural justice and the same is hereby set aside.

It will be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

It will also be open for the petitioner to plead before the respondents/authorities that he is willing and ready to remove/compound the violations and submit the revised plan.

Disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 29, 2013 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //