HIRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 3.7.2007 (P-7) passed by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chandigarh-respondent No. 1. A further prayer for quashing order dated 29.12.2005 (P-5) passed by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), Mohali [now Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)] and order dated 13.11.1992 (P-2) passed by the Estate Officer of the erstwhile Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh (PHDB) canceling the allotment of House No. HE-207- A, Phase IX, Mohali, has been made. Still further it has been prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to restore and regularise the allotment of aforementioned house in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to lower strata of the society. She was allotted E.W.S. Group House No. HE-207-A, Sector 63-D in Phase IX, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 23.5.1977 (P-1) by the PHDB at a tentative price of Rs. 8,000/-. She paid Rs. 500/- at the time of making the application and rest of the amount was payable through monthly instalments over a period of 18 years. The case of the petitioner is that the entire price of the house in question has been paid. On the basis of her own belief that the construction of additional room was permissible with the prior permission, she added one room and stairs in her house albeit without permission. However, the Estate Officer, PHDB, passed an order dated 13.11.1992 cancelling her allotment (P-2) on the allegation that she had raised unauthorised construction in the house like room and stairs. Thereafter notice under Section 46(1) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Act') was served on the petitioner on 16.5.2003 informing her that since allotment of the house stood cancelled, she was to appear before the Estate Officer, PUDA, on 1.7.2003 to show cause why she should not be evicted from the house in question.

(3.) THEREAFTER the petitioner has been confronted with orders of eviction issued on 27.8.2007 (P-8) by invoking the provisions of Section 46(1) of the Act. When the matter came up for hearing on 4.10.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that unauthorised construction has been removed by the petitioner and the Division Bench passed an interim order staying her dispossession.