Remanded

Ramesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012CWP/3470/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order dismissing an appeal against a demolition order passed under the Public Premises Act. The Court held the appeal was maintainable and set aside the orders dismissing it, directing the Additional District Judge to decide the appeal according to law.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal is set aside, and the appeal is directed to be decided according to law.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of decision: 24.2.2012 CWP No. 3470 of 2012

¶3

Ramesh Kumar @ Ram Ishver Parsad

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

Sub Divisional Magistrate (Central)

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Present: - Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner

¶9

CORAM: -HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶10

HEMANT GUPTA, J

¶11

Notice of motion.

¶12

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate present in Court accepts notice. Since the issue is short and purely legal, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 31.5.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, exercising the power of Estate Officer, under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act') whereby an order against the petitioners was passed for demolition of the unauthorized construction raised on the public land.

¶14

Petitioners filed an appeal against the said order but the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 5.1.2012

¶15

CWP No. 3470 of 2012

¶16

(Annexure P-9A) on the ground that an appeal against the order passed under Section 5A(2) of the Act is not maintainable.

¶17

We find that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable. Section 5(A) of the Act contemplates that the building violations can be got removed by the Competent Authority after issuing a show cause notice. Section 5B of the Act empowers the competent authority to pass an order of demolition of unauthorized construction. It is under the said Section i.e. Section 5B of the Act, the order dated 31.5.2010 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, exercising the power of Estate Officer. It is the said order which is appealable under Section 9 of the Act. Mere fact that the Estate Officer has mentioned that the order is passed under Section 5A of the Act, will not make the order under Section 5A as the order passed relates to Section 5B of the Act. An enforceable order is contemplated as under Section 5B of the Act.

¶18

In view of the said fact, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh (Annexure-P 9A) is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to decide the appeal according to law.

¶19

Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 5.3.2012.

Disposed of.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE

CWP No. 3470 of 2012

24.2.2012 preeti

Ramesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaur Sain Vs Huda, Panchkula and Others

Kamal Kant and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Santosh Kumar etc. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Jasbir Kaur @ Nikki Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Kumar & Anr. Vs the Chd. Ind. & Tourism Devp. Corp. Ltd. & Ors.

P.S. Sawhney Vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr.