Punjab and Haryana High Court asks Chandigarh Housing Board to remove unauthorised structures

Chandigarh, April 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) and other respondents to take immediate action for the removal of all “completely unauthorised structures” made on the third floor of its dwelling units.

The Bench made it clear that the action was necessary as it had been specified by a committee of technical people, including executive engineers and a superintending engineer, that the third floor was wholly unauthorised and the foundations of the dwelling units did not cater to such load.

The direction by the Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra came on a petition filed by the Ground Floor Residents in Duplex Flats Welfare Association against the “UT Chief Administrator” and other respondents.

The Bench asserted that there were actually two dwelling units in each structure, one on the ground floor and the other a duplex of the first and second floor. As such, the third floor could only have been constructed either by persons living on the second floor or with their express consent, which was completely illegal. “If no such third floor has ever been sanctioned by the competent authority, obviously such construction is liable to be removed immediately with it endangering the structure of the whole unit,” the Bench added.

Referring to the alterations by those on the ground and the second floor, the Bench directed the respondent housing board to take immediate action for restoring “the structural aspects of the dwelling units, i.e. any pillars, load bearing walls, foundations and cantilevers that have been found to be removed”.

The Bench added that it would also be ensured that proper structural safety was provided to all units at the cost of the allottees on a pro rata basis as per the extent of the violation and the construction now to be made by the respondent housing board. The costs would be assessed in accordance with the scheduled rates specified by the competent authority.

Additions made by residents falling within the permissible norms of the existing bylaws would be considered on an individual basis by the respondent housing board. A detailed speaking order would be passed where such alterations were found to be permissible.

The persons behind such alterations would make statutory payments as may be required for compounding such changes permitted by the bylaws.

194 of 628 units have violations

A report has stated that 194 units of 628 or 31 per cent were “found to be in violation”. Six ground floor units were found having blatant violations by way of removing essential load bearing walls affecting the structural stability of the dwelling unit. Another 76 first floor dwelling units were stated to have made an additional third floor level even though the existing foundation was not designed to withstand the load of an additional storey. No less than 174 dwelling units on the first floor were found to have made constructions over the cantilevered portion at the first and second floor. One dwelling unit was found to have raised construction on the rear terrace without raising a load bearing wall from the ground floor level.

Specified by tech panel

• The Bench made it clear that the action was necessary as it had been specified by a committee of technical people, including executive engineers and a superintending engineer, that the third floor was wholly unauthorised and the foundations of the dwelling units did not cater to such load.
• The direction by the Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra came on a petition filed by the Ground Floor Residents in Duplex Flats Welfare Association against the “UT Chief Administrator” and other respondents.