Petitioner challenged orders mandating demolition of unauthorized construction violating sanctioned site plan terms. Court found no merit and dismissed writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.18707 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.18707 of 2011 Date of Decision :4.10.2011
Saneh Lata ....Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Building-site plan, submitted by the petitioner Saneh Lata for the purpose of raising construction of her house, was sanctioned on 19.10.2006 by the respondent Municipal Corporation (for brevity “the MC”), Bathinda, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Since the petitioner raised an un-authorized construction in complete violation of terms and conditions of the sanctioned site plan, so, the MC served a show cause notice to her. In pursuance of show cause notice dated 19.10.2009, she filed her replies on 22 & 29.10.2009, wherein, she admitted, but claimed that the un-authorized/additional constructions have been pulled down. Taking into consideration the indicated violations, the MC directed the petitioner to remove the un-authorized constructions, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P2).
Civil Writ Petition No.18707 of 2011 -2-
the authorities below and preferred the present writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
“So, after carefully considering the respective contention of learned counsel for the parties and above discussed material brought on record by the parties, I have reached at a considered opinion that the appellant is raising construction in violation of the sanctioned site plan dated
Civil Writ Petition No.18707 of 2011 -3-
19.10.2006 for demolition of which show cause notice was issued to her and then impugned order dated 30.10.2009 was passed to demolish the unauthorized construction by the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation while exercising the powers conferred under Sec.269 of the Act. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 269(2) of the Act.”
( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) 4.10.2011 Judge AS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding unauthorized construction.
Whether the Municipal Corporation acted within its jurisdiction in passing the order to demolish unauthorized construction.
Whether any patent illegality exists in the orders passed against the petitioner for violation of sanctioned site plan conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raghbir Singh and another v. Municipal Corporation, AmritsarRelied on¶6
(2011-3) P.L.R. 315
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Saneh Lata
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
