Tuesday, November 12, 2019
facebook
Chandigarh

Posted at: Jul 16, 2019, 7:37 AM; last updated: Jul 16, 2019, 7:37 AM (IST)

Demolition only in line with High Court order, says CHB

Demolition only in line with High Court order, says CHB

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 15

Six years after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) not to carry out a demolition drive till the claim of each and every petitioner-allottee/possessor was considered under the new policy, counsel for the board has undertaken before the Bench that demolition would be carried out — if required — only after complying with the decision.

  Appearing before the Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan, counsel for the board and other respondents stated that so far only a show-cause notice had been served upon the petitioners and “demolition shall be done, if required, only after complying with the decision of this court”.

The development took place on a contempt of court petition filed against CHB Chairman AK Sinha and another respondent by Rajiv Kumar and other petitioners through counsel AS Nabhewala.

  In the petition, Nabhewala had alleged willful disobedience of an order dated July 19, 2013, passed by High Court on a bunch of writ petitions. Referring to the order, Nabhewala added the respondent board and the Chandigarh Administration had planned, at that time, to introduce need-based changes in the dwelling units, keeping in view the hardship being faced by the owners/possessers. The Bench was also told that the formation of a new policy was under consideration. 

The Bench, in its order, had observed that the counsel for the respondent board as well as the Chandigarh Administration had stated that the policy was likely to be finalised “very soon”.

  The Bench had added that counsel for the parties, in view of the facts, had agreed that the petitions be disposed of with a direction to the respondent-board to consider the violations made by the petitioners in accordance with the new policy and “if permissible under the policy, the same be regularised”.

  The Bench had further noted in its order that the vio lations, which could not be regularised even under the new policy, would be liable to be demolished in accordance with law by giving a notice to the petitioner concerned. “Till the claim of each and every petitioner is considered under the new policy and an appropriate order is passed after providing an opportunity of hearing, no demolition shall take place. Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of....” The Bench had concluded.

Referring to the case in hand, Nabhewala added that the notice dated July 6, 2018, for demolition had been served upon the petitioner, in spite of the earlier order. Satisfied with the stand of the counsel for the respondents that demolition would be carried out only after complying with the High Court decision, Nabhewala stated that “no grievance survives”. Talking a note of the statement, Justice Jhingan disposed of the contempt petition as infructuous.

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On