Chandigarh sets aside order to raze sanctionable violations : The Tribune India

Chandigarh sets aside order to raze sanctionable violations

Chandigarh sets aside order to raze sanctionable violations


Tribune News Service

Dushyant Singh Pundir

Chandigarh, December 9

Providing relief to property owners in the city, the Court of Chief Administrator of UT has set aside the order of the Estate Officer whereby it was ordered to demolish sanctionable violations at a shop in Sector 15-D.

Sudarshan Kumar (tenant) and Kulwaran Chaudhary (owner) filed an appeal before the court of Hargunjit Kaur, Special Secretary Finance, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator, UT, against the order passed by the SDM (Central) on June 24, 2016, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, whereby non-sanctionable violations were ordered to be demolished, besides sealing of portion where sanctionable violations existed at shop No. 44 in Sector 15-D.

Relief for shopkeeper; EO told to revisit case

  • On March 14, 2014, Estate Office issues notice to remove building violations, post inspection of shop
  • On June 24, 2016, SDM orders razing of non-sanctionable violations
  • Appellants move court of Chief Administrator, say violation temporary & sanctionable
  • Say orders passed despite revised building plans being submitted on Sept 24, 2015
  • Chief Administrator sets aside order and remands back case to Estate Office to have a relook

Vikas Jain, counsel for the appellant, stated the Estate Officer orders were arbitrary. The shop was transferred to Chaudhary’s name on the terms and conditions set out in the allotment letter dated on May 30, 2006.

As per the terms and conditions of the letter, the building was required to be constructed according to the sanctioned plan and provisions of building bylaws as per the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952, as amended from time to time. During inspection, it was found the rear courtyard had been changed without getting the revised building plan sanctioned from the competent authority.

Accordingly, the Estate Office issued a show-cause notice on March 14, 2014, to remove the building violations.

After affording opportunities to the appellants, the SDM (Central) passed the impugned order dated June 24, 2016, whereby it was ordered to demolish the non-sanctionable violations and seal the portion where sanctionable violations existed at the shop.

Aggrieved by the order, the appellants chose to appeal in the court of the Chief Administrator. Kumar appeared before the court and submitted the alleged violation was temporary and sanctionable.

Jain stated the appellants submitted revised building plans on September 24, 2015. On June 24, 2016, the SDM (Central), without seeking the inspection report, passed the order of demolition in spite of the fact that the appellants had already submitted the revised building plans. He also produced the judgment of the High Court wherein it was held if any violation was sanctionable, the demolition order could not be passed.

The inspection staff vide report dated September 3, 2015, claimed the alleged violation was sanctionable subject to submission of revised building plans.

The plans were submitted on September 24, thus, the SDM (Central) had wrongly passed the demolition order without taking into consideration the law settled by the High Court, submitted Jain.

On the contrary, the counsel for the Estate Office stated the SDM (Central) had afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to the appellants while passing the impugned order.

After hearing both parties and perusing documents on record, the Chief Administrator observed: “Neither the Estate Office has been able to say anything about non-release of sanctioned building plans nor even able to produce any resumption order. In the absence of necessary documents, how the impugned order dated June 24, 2016, sustains in the eyes of law on the ground of demolition when alleged violation was sanctionable as per the report of the inspecting staff.”

Accepting the appeal, the Chief Administrator set aside the order of the SDM (Central) and remanded back the case to the Estate Office to take judicious decision in the matter.

Tribune Shorts


Top News

Former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf passes away

Former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf passes away in Dubai

The former military ruler had left Pakistan in March 2016 fo...

Pervez Musharraf: The 4-star Pakistan General who seized power in a coup dies in exile

Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan's last military ruler and the architect of Kargil War

After his failed misadventure in Kargil, Musharraf deposed t...

US downs Chinese surveillance balloon, China threatens repercussions

US downs Chinese surveillance balloon, China threatens repercussions

Military shoots down the surveillance balloon in Atlantic Oc...

FIR against former Indian cricketer Vinod Kambli for assaulting wife

FIR against former Indian cricketer Vinod Kambli for assaulting wife

The incident took place on Friday when Kambli reached his fl...

Centre likely to hike dearness allowance by 4 per cent to 42 per cent

Centre likely to hike dearness allowance by 4 per cent to 42 per cent

Dearness allowance for employees and pensioners are worked o...


Cities

View All