Allowed

Shinder Singh and Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012CWP/5029/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge Bench allowed a writ petition challenging resumption orders against the petitioner for alleged unauthorized internal partitions, setting aside impugned orders and directing reconsideration in light of cited precedent and amended bye-laws.

What did the court decide?

The order of resumption dated 30.09.1978, order dated 10.08.1982 and order dated 22.02.1989 were set aside and Estate Officer directed to reconsider the entire issue.

Shinder Singh and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 5029 of 1989(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 5029 of 1989(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 19.01.2012

¶6

Shinder Singh and others

¶7

........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union Territory, Chandigarh and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh Guron, Advocate for the petitioners

¶13

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the respondents

¶14

HEMANT GUPTA, J.(ORAL)

¶15

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the resumption order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on 30.9.1978; the order in appeal passed by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh on 10.8.1982 and the order in revision passed by the Central Government on 22.2.1989.

¶16

The plot was resumed for the reason that the petitioner has made unauthorised internal partitions which interfere with the provisions of Frame Control and Architectural Control Sheet. Still aggrieved, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Rajinder Kumar and sons vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 2000 Punjab & Haryana 297 wherein in respect of similar partitions, it was held that the same cannot

¶18

CWP No. 5029 of 1989(O&M)

¶19

¶20

be held to be illegal or unfair.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that certain internal changes have since been permitted in the Building Bye Laws after the writ petition was filed as well.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of resumption dated 30.09.1978 (Annexure P-1), order dated 10.08.1982 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 22.02.1989 (Annexure P-3) and direct the Estate Officer to reconsider the entire issue in the light of the judgement referred to by the petitioners and the amended Building Bye Laws.

¶23

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶25

(A.N. JINDAL) 19.01.2012 JUDGE reena/vimal

Shinder Singh and Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinder Singh and Ors. v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepan Garg Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Noordeen & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Hisar Ex. Naval Personnel Welfare Society Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

Ram Avad Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.