CWP No. 5366 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5366 of 1988 Date of decision: 09.12.2010 Heera Lal ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh etc. ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate, for Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated 26.06.1987, vide which construction raised by the petitioner was ordered to be demolished by passing an order under Sections 5/6/11 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act'). It is evident from the record that the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner to demolish the construction raised by him in the land, which, as per revenue record, was shown agricultural land in nature. Petitioner's objection that he has raised construction after moving an application to raise the same, was rejected. CWP No. 5366 of 1988 2 When notice of motion was issued on 23.06.1988, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court:- “ It is contented on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application seeking permission to erect poultry shed in village Manimajra on 8.1.1984 and it was declined an year later on 9.5.1985 which could not be done under the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, and rather a legal presumption arose that the plans have been sanctioned. Further says that the action to call upon the petitioner to restore the site to its original position is unwarranted in law.” Sh. Goyal, by making reference to the provisions of Sub- section 6 of Section 6 of the Act, states that when the petitioner failed to get an order rejecting his application dated 08.01.1984, within three months' from the date of moving that application, he raised the construction, as per the proposed plan submitted with the authorities. Thereafter, the application was rejected vide order dated 09.05.1985. It is contended that, as such the petitioner had a right to raise the construction and now the authorities cannot tell him to demolish the same. Section 6 of the Act provides the procedure to be adopted to dispose of an application moved for permission to raise construction or to erect any building etc. within the controlled area. Sub-Section 6 of Section 6 reads thus:- “6) If at the expiration of a period of three months after an application under Sub Section (1) has been made to the Deputy Commissioner no order in writing has been passed by CWP No. 5366 of 1988 3 the Deputy Commissioner, permission shall, without prejudice to the restriction signified in the plans under Section 4 be deemed to have been given without the imposition of any conditions.” The provision, mentioned above, makes it very clear that if within three months' from the date of moving an application to raise construction, no order in writing is passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting permission or otherwise, then the permission to construct, deem to have been given without imposing any condition. The above-said fact was not noticed by the competent officer when order, under challenge, was passed, rather no reference was made to the above-said provision of the Act. Otherwise also, order passed is non-speaking one. In view of above, we allow this writ petition and quash order dated 26.06.1987 and direct the Land Acquisition Officer, exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh under the Act, to take a decision afresh after issuing notice on the petitioner, by passing a speaking order, as per law. Petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned officer on 23.12.2010. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE December 09, 2010 pj