Disposed

Deepak Bhasin v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2009CWP/18788/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner, being the sole owner of the first and second floors under a Will, is entitled to have a revised building plan for those floors sanctioned without insisting on a joint application from co-owners of other floors. The petition was disposed of with directions to sanction the plan within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to sanction the revised building plan for the Ist and 2nd floors of the house within four weeks.

Deepak Bhasin Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18788 OF 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: August 06, 2009.

Parties Name

Deepak Bhasin

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶14

Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶15

JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)

¶16

Order.

¶17

Vide order dated June 28, 2007 (P-4) building plan, submitted by the petitioner, was rejected on the ground that the other co-sharers, in property bearing house No. 227, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh, have not signed the same.

¶18

Admittedly, property in question was the ownership of father of the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5. After his death, vide order dated November 25, 2006 (P-2), property was transferred in name of the petitioner and respondents No. 4 & 5, as mentioned in the Will. Petitioner

¶19

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18788 OF 2007 -2-

¶20

along with Sushma Bhasin, respondent No. 5 was given 50% share and remaining 50% had gone to Deepak Bhasin. In the transfer letter, it is specifically mentioned that the transferees shall comply with the stipulations of the Will (P-1), wherein regarding bequeathing the property in dispute, it was stated as under:

¶21

“The entire ground floor including annexe portion will be given jointly to my elder son Sh. Ravindra Bhasin and his wife Smt. Sushma Bhasin while the first and second floor of the house will go to my grand son Deepak Bhasin son of Sh. Devendra Bhasin, my younger son.”

¶22

As per the Will, the petitioner is entitled to use and occupy Ist and 2^nd floor of the house in question. It is an admitted fact that he had submitted building plan to make some changes in the Ist and 2^nd floors only. Once it has come on record, that the petitioner is owner of the Ist and 2^nd Floor of the house, it is not justified for the respondent – authorities to insist upon joint application along with respondents No. 4 and 5, to sanction the revised Building plan. Faced with the situation, Shri Sharma states that the building plan, submitted by the petitioner, regarding Ist and 2^nd Floors of the house in question shall be sanctioned as per rules. Needful be done within a period of four weeks.

¶23

In view of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

August 06, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge

Deepak Bhasin v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Bhasin v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khem Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jasvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raju Mishra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Suresh Dutt Kaushik and Ors. Vs HUDA and Anr.

M/S J.S.Kundlas Rice Mills and Ors. Vs Specified Authority and Ors.

Balwant Singh Bahia Vs State of Punjab & Others