BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who complains of danger to his own building being an occupant, is a lessee of the property belonging to Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) cited as the 6th Respondent, contends that Respondents 11 and 12 have put up constructions after taking a sub-lease of the property that belonged to BBMB. The Petitioner's grievance is that he is the personal occupant of the shop in the immediate proximity in Door No. 45, while the shops in Door No. 43 and 44 have come by the possession of the Respondents 10 to 12 and they have carried out substantial alterations, additions and constructions without due sanction from the municipality. The new constructions, according to the Petitioner, imperil public safety by carrying out high rise constructions without sanction or plan, being violative of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911.

(2.) The 6th Respondent is represented through counsel and they have filed written statement contending that the property in shop No. 43 and 44 had been let only to the 10th Respondent, but they have been sub let in favour of Respondents 11 and 12 and admits to constructions being unauthorized. The first Respondent claims that he has terminated lease in favour of 10th Respondent and has initiated action for eviction under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act and the petition is still pending before the Estate Officer.

(3.) The municipality has also filed the written statement and it states explicitly in para 4 that Respondents 11 and 12 did not get any plan approved for the construction from the answering Respondent. Respondents 10 to 12 have filed written statement contending that the market buildings which are in the occupation respectively of the Petitioner and the Respondents are under the control of BBMB and the constructions have been made in the year 1948-49. The Petitioner himself is not in any way concerned with Shop No. 43-44 and the Petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection. It is further stated that the Petitioner himself has raised unauthorized construction and he is not entitled to complain of any statutory violations against the Respondents.