CWP No.10002 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 10002 of 2007 Date of Decision: 14 - 12 - 2009 Sohan Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Gurminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was allotted House No.550, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali vide allotment letter, Annexure P1, on 4.1.1979. This house belong to Middle Income Group category and was allotted on hire-purchase basis. On 22.1.2002, a notice was issued to the petitioner that he is using the residential house as commercial, therefore, allotment of the house was cancelled and 10% of the amount of total price paid was forfeited. It is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 that petitioner was carrying on activity of property CWP No.10002 of 2007 [2] consultancy (Property Dealer) from this house, which according to the authorities, was construed commercial activity. Counsel for the respondents has further stated that petitioner was also running a florist shop. Counsel for the petitioner has read the following portion of the written statement filed by the respondents:- “1. Further in another checking conducted on 11.05.2007, it was gain reported that one florist shop is running under the front staircase of the house and the front room of the house is being used by Property Consultant under the name and style of Kanwar Properties and one establishment namely Western Union Money Transfer existed in the house. A copy of this report dated 11.05.2007 is annexed on record as Annexure R-2....” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to bring the house in question in consonance with the rules, regulations and policy of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as, `GMADA'). It can be briefly noticed that cancellation notice was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision and the Revisional Authority ordered restoration of the site subject to the condition that petitioner shall cure the violation and pay Rs.10,000/- as penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that taking into consideration that various property dealers are running the business from their residential houses or flats, even GMADA has decided to frame a policy and regularise the same. CWP No.10002 of 2007 [3] Taking into consideration that respondents themselves have thought it prudent to frame a policy to regularise the offices of property consultancy, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be lightly visited. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that within one month from today, he shall file an undertaking with the authorities that he will not carry on any activity which is contrary to terms of allotment, rules, regulations and policy of the GMADA. Mr.Gurminder Singh appearing for GMADA has stated that many inspection reports were carried and the watch and ward staff of the GMADA had to pursue the case before the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, therefore, GMADA should be suitably compensated. It has been broadly agreed that compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- be ordered to be paid to GMADA. Therefore, subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- with the GMADA and furnishing an undertaking as noticed above within one month from today, the authorities shall withdraw the order of cancellation and the petitioner shall carry on the business as per policy and with permission of the authorities. Needless to say that for breach of rules, regulations, policy and terms and conditions of allotment in future, shall always vest right a in GMADA to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law. With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 14, 2009. JUDGE RC