CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. HARINDER PANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed on behalf of Chandigarh Administration, against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 3/02/1989, accepting the writ petition of respondent (writ petitioner) Mrs. Harinder Pannu, by which it was held that the action of the appellants in demolishing a portion of the stores in House No. 31, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, owned by the respondent, was illegal and that the respondent was entitled to reconstruct the demolished portion at her own costs.

(2.) Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent is the owner of House No. 31, Sector 8A, Chandigarh. She was issued a notice dated 17/09/1982 (Annexure P-1) by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, under Section 15 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, mentioning therein that she had construed temporary stores in the court-yard of the house, in contravention of R. 5 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952, she was asked to demolish the aforesaid unauthorised construction with 15 days of the issue of the notice. Reply was given to the said notice that she could not be asked to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction. However, an order dated 17/08/1983 was issued by the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, ordering the demolition of the unauthorised construction. However, no action was taken till 23/12/1986, when the alleged unauthorised construction was demolished. The respondent, Mrs. Harinder Pannu filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Chandigarh Administration in demolishing the so-called unauthorised construction.

(3.) The only argument which was addressed before the learned single Judge and which prevailed before him was that proviso to R. 15 of the 1952 Rules provides that the Chief Administrator can require the building erected in contravention of building Rules to be altered or demolished by a written notice delivered to the owner thereof within six months of its having begun or having been completed and since in the present case the notice for demolition was admittedly after six months of the completion of the alleged unauthorised construction, the same could not be ordered to be demolished, but the alleged illegal construction in contravention of the rules could only be compounded.