VIJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts necessary for deciding whether the order Annexure P.8 and the judgment Annexure P. 10 should be nullified are that Bungalow No. 66, situated on the Mall, Ambala Cantt. was leased out to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners for residential purposes. Presently, it is in the occupation of the petitioners. On 22.9.1994, Shri Sharan Singh, S.D.O., GDE III submitted a report to the Defence Estate Officer, Ambala Circle that the occupants of Bungalow No. 66 have made unauthorised construction by demolishing old walls and roofs and erected new walls and roofs by placing RCC slabs and by putting floor in certain rooms without obtaining permission from the competent authority. On receipt of this report, notice Annexure P.1 dated 17.11.1994 was issued to the petitioners requiring them to remove/demolish the unauthorised construction. A site plan showing the unauthorised construction was enclosed with the notice. On 30.11.1994, the Estate Officer, Ambala Circle, Ambala Cantt. issued notice under Section 5B(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act') to the petitioners requiring them to show cause why an order of demolition be not made. The petitioners not only denied the allegation of raising unauthorised construction but also stated that they have carried out minor repairs and no addition or alternation of structure has been made. Shri Sharan Singh, who was examined as the only witness on behalf of the competent authority, reiterated the contents of his report. In the cross-examination, he stated that there is no increase in the plinth area. After considering the statement of Shri Sharan Singh, the Estate Officer, Ambala Circle passed order Annexure P.8 dated 19/20.6.1995 for demolition of the work got done by the petitioners. The appeal filed by them under Section 9 of the 1971 Act has been dismissed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds:

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have defended the order of demolition passed by the Estate Officer by stating that the petitioners carried out major repairs by replacing the roofs and floors without seeking prior permission from the competent authority. In a separate written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been averred that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court because they are guilty of violating the provisions of Section 179 of the 1924 Act.