TEJINDER SINGH BAWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners alongwith another person purchased the land measuring 633 square yards close to the District Court Chowk in Amritsar. They submitted a plan for raising construction on this land. The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, respondent No. 2, rejected the plan on the ground that the land in question was "a part of Green Space". Even a representation submitted by petitioner No. 1 to the Government was rejected vide order dated April 25, 1990. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed civil writ petition No. 8072 of 1990 and prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to sanction the plan or to acquire the land on payment of compensation under Section 275 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act., 1976. It appears the even before the plan had been formally sanctioned, the petitioners had started raising construction on the site on January 20, 1989. On January 31, 1989, the respondent Corporation served a notice on petitioner No. 1 to show cause as to why he should not he stopped from raising the construction. Therefore, as many as seven notices were issued to the petitioners from February 13, 1989. The petitioners resorted to litigation before the Civil Court. According to the petitioners, in spite of the grant of an ad interim injunction, the building was actually demolished on June 20, 1989. Thereafter, notices under Sections 269(1) and 220(1) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, were issued to the petitioners. They were informed that they had started the repair of the demolished shops without permission in violation of filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12910 of 1991 and prayed that the notices be quashed and the respondents be directed not to demolish the building or to remove the debris, etc. In view of the orders of the Motion Bench, these petitions have been listed together for hearing and can be disposed of by one order.

(2.) THE primary claim of the petitioner is that they being the owners of the property, have the right to use it and the respondent -Corporation cannot deny them the permission to raise construction thereon. The petitioners maintain that electricity connection was sanctioned. Others, like Smt. Lajwanti, were allowed to raise construction. The action of the respondent -Corporation is arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard.