CAPT. SAROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is at the instance of owner of a building, the stairs of which had been demolished in a drive against encroachments undertaken by virtue of orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 4886 of 2003. The judgment in the said writ petition directed that the Municipal Corporation should have an enforcement through a Monitoring Committee and locate areas which were encroached and take action, proactive as well as preventive, for ensuring that the public spaces are kept free of any encroachments. It also allowed for public spirited person to institute action for contempt, if the Municipal Corporation had not been vigilant about the removal of encroachments. The petitioners, who are the purchasers from the original owner of the property, complained through this writ petition, that on a holiday on 24.04.2010, the 2nd respondent-Corporation, acting through its Joint Commissioner, and respondents 4 and 5, who at that time were Municipal Town Planner and Estate Officer, came upon the petitioners' premises and demolished the stairs leading to the basement from the road. The petitioners would affirm that their constructions conformed to the sanctioned plans and the demolition of constructions was wholly unjustified and spirited by mala fides of the respondents.

(2.) The State Authority would contend that the petitioners' constructions were not in conformity with the plan and breached the FAR sanctioned by erecting constructions in places reserved for open parking. For instance, according to the counsel for the respondents, the stairs had been constructed in the place reserved for parking and shops at the basement had been constructed by enclosing the open space meant for car parking and renting them as shops. The learned counsel would argue that the permissible FAR for the building was 1:1.50 and that left out of reckoning the spaces meant for parking. By enclosing the walls and converting them as shops and stairs, the petitioners had breached the FAR and would, therefore, justify the action taken by them.

(3.) During the tendency of the proceedings, this Court had passed an order on 28.01.2011, directing the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, to remain present with the records and also furnish details of other basements that had direct access from Lawrence Road, which had also been treated similarly and whether such demolitions had taken place. This Court had directed that the details furnished by the Commissioner should be got verified by a local Commissioner at the expense of the Municipal Corporation, if such need arose.