DALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order/letter dated 29.8.2014 (Annexure P -6) vide which respondent No.4 has ordered to demolish the construction/the shutters replaced by him on the front of more than 50 years old building on the pretext of new construction on scheduled road whereas the notification to declare schedule road had been issued on 23.12.2014.

(2.) THE facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein are that the litigation is pending between the petitioner and his nephew respondent No.6. Respondent No. 6 made a complaint dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P -1) to respondent No.4 that the petitioner has recently constructed a building on Malerkotla road by violating the provisions of PUDA Act, 1995. The house of the petitioner is about 50 years old and due to the change of plinth level, front wooden doors were replaced with iron shutters. The petitioner received a notice dated 24.6.2014 to which he filed a detailed reply dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure P -2) to respondent No.5. Respondents No.4 and 5 after being satisfied with the reply, filed the complaint. Thereafter, respondent No.6 filed COCP No. 1904 of 2014 against respondent No.4 for not taking any action inspite of direction by this Court in CWP No. 4559 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 25.7.2014 issued notice of motion to respondents No.3 and 4. On receipt of notice, respondent No.5 vide letter dated 13.8.2014 (Annexure P -4) directed the petitioner to demolish the construction in the building. The petitioner submitted reply dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P -5) to the said letter/notice. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 29.8.2014 (Annexure P -6) without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ordered to demolish the construction within seven days. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) UPON notice of motion having been issued, respondent No.3 and respondents No. 4 and 5 filed their separate written statements by way of affidavits controverting the averments made in the writ petition. It was pleaded by respondents No.4 and 5 that the petitioner was afforded opportunity of personal hearing and a show cause notice dated 24.6.2014 was issued to him. The petitioner was directed to dismantle the permanent structure which was being started by him. It was further pleaded that respondent No.5 wrote a letter dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure R -3) to respondent No.4 that the petitioner was told to stop from doing the construction work but the same was not stopped. Respondent No.4 also issued a show cause notice dated 24.6.2014 (Annexure R -4) to the petitioner asking as to why the unauthorized structure be not demolished. The other averments made in the writ petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. The petitioner filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statements filed by the respondents and reiterating that of made in the writ petition.