KANTA MAHAJAN, WIFE OF SHRI SHORI LAL MAHAJAN, THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI SATYA PAL MAHAJAN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DALHOUSIE, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER DALHOUSIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1.6.2007 in CWP No. 863 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the petition filed by the petitioners (appellants herein) and upheld the order passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants raised certain constructions in Dalhousie town. The Municipal Council, Dalhousie received a complaint dated 20.1.2000 alleging that the appellants were raising an unauthorized construction by laying RCC slab on the first floor of hotel Kings, situate at Panjpulla Road, Dalhousie without any prior permission or sanction. A notice was issued to the appellants on 21.11.2000 to stop the construction but they did not stop the construction. Thereafter the employees of the respondent - Council again brought to the notice of the Council on 4.12.2000 the fact that the appellants were still raising unauthorized and illegal construction. Thereafter, the Municipal Council issued show cause notice directing the appellants to show cause why construction be not demolished and fine be not imposed on them.

(2.) THE matter was placed before the House of the Municipal Council on 8.3.2001. In this meeting, it was resolved to ask the appellants to submit drawings to enable the Council to compound the case as per the Rules. On 22.3.2001, the appellants were again directed to submit the building plan. The appellants did not respond to these notices also and therefore, on 27.6.2001, the Municipal Council, Dalhousie resolved to demolish the unauthorized construction raised by the appellants and pursuant to such decision, orders in this regard were issued by the Executive Officer on 5.7.2001 to demolish the unauthorized construction of the first storey of hotel Kings.

(3.) THE main argument of Shri Suneet Goel, Learned Counsel for the appellants, is that the appellants were never served with notices issued by the Municipal Council and it is also urged that the appellants had got a plan sanctioned and the construction was done in accordance with the plan and at the most there is only a slight deviation from the plan in as much as the sanction was for a restaurant but now a parking area is being constructed.