Owners say were told of relaxations, CHB says no way

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 18

A controversy of sorts has erupted before the Punjab and Haryana High Court over the issuance of a press note on carrying out relaxation in need-based changes in the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) dwelling units.

Appearing before the Bench, counsel for the petitioner-dwellers submitted that a press note was issued on July 12 and the time limit was extended till December 31, 2020, “whereby relaxation for need-based changes has been given”. Counsel for the respondent-CHB, on the other hand, submitted that “no such publication or notification has been issued by the housing board”.

Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners Ashok Sharma Nabhewala has sought time to place on record a copy of the public notice/notification. Taking a note of the developments, the Division Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Sudhir Mittal has directed counsel for the petitioners to address arguments on the next date of hearing “to show as to how this petition is maintainable, when the time limit has already been extended up to December 31, 2020…”

The developments took place nearly six years after the High Court directed the 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, in a connected matter, only recently undertook before the Bench that the 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 petitioner and “demolition shall be carried out, if required, only after complying with the decision of this court”.

The undertaking came 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 submitted that the contempt plea was filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated July 19, 2013, passed by the High Court on a bunch of writ petitions. Referring to the order, Nabhewala had added at that time  that the respondent board and the Chandigarh Administration, keeping in view the hardship being faced by the owners/possessers of the dwelling units, had planned to introduce need-based changes in the existing dwelling units, and formation of a new policy was under consideration. 

The Bench, in the order, had observed that counsel for the respondent board as well as the Chandigarh Administration had stated that the policy was likely to be finalised 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 that the violations, which could not be regularised even under the new policy, would be liable to be demolished in accordance with the 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 in the aforesaid terms,” the Bench had concluded.