IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5531 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Satpal Singh and another. ..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Johny Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Vikas Mahsempuri, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the sale of open spaces in what is known as CWP No. 5531 of 2008 [2] Delight Colony, Patiala, approved as a scheme area under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It also prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to maintain and upkeep the parks and open spaces for use of the residents of the area in terms of the sanctioned scheme. A prohibition restraining the private respondents from alienating the open spaces earmarked in the scheme area and a direction to the official respondents not to sanction the building plans for such areas has also been prayed for. In terms of an order dated 26.03.1976, the Government of Punjab had in exercise of its power under Section 192(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 accorded sanction to the Town Planning Scheme submitted by the Administrator, Patiala Municipality, for Area No. 4-A measuring 49.73 acres, comprehensively described in the drawing referred to in the said order. The petitioners who happen to be the residents of Delight Colony allege that the scheme in question is being violated not only by the erstwhile owners of the land comprising the scheme area but also by the concerned authorities in as much as open spaces which were meant to be maintained as parks for the benefit of residents of the colony have been sold to private individuals who have in turn utilised the same for raising construction of their houses, thereby depriving the inhabitants of the colony of the benefits of the parks and open spaces so very essential for their comfort and good health. The present writ petition, therefore, prays for intervention of this Court in public interest to enforce the provisions of the scheme and also to remove encroachments and constructions illegally raised in such areas. CWP No. 5531 of 2008 [3] The respondents have filed their affidavits in reply, in which they have set up their respective versions. Respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation, Patiala which has succeeded the Patiala Municipality in terms of the provisions of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 has also filed an affidavit, in para whereof, it has specifically stated that the Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Patiala has taken cognizance of the representation made by the petitioners against violations of the scheme and directed immediate action in the matter. The Corporation further states that the owners of plots No. 14-A, 14-B, 15-A and 15-B have raised construction over the said plots and that suitable action against the said individuals is being initiated. For facility of reference, we may at this stage extract the averments made in para No. 4 of the affidavit filed by the Corporation:- “4. That in reply to para No.4 of the petition, it is submitted that the Mayor Municipal Corporation, Patiala has taken a cognizance of the representation of the petitioners Annexure P-1 and directed and immediate action. It is relevant to mention here that owners of plot Nos. 14-A and 14-B Shri Sandeep K.Barua and Shri Inderjit Singh Malhotra, and owners of House Nos. 15-A and 15-B Shri Gorakhsh Jain and Shri R.K.Handa, have raised the construction of their residences in the pocket reserved as park measuring 60' x 120' = 800 sq. yards. Further, it is relevant to mention here that a road measuring 20' x 120' is also built in this pocket. A suitable action is being initiated against them.” CWP No. 5531 of 2008 [4] In so far as respondent No.2, Director Town & Country Planning is concerned, it is inter-alia stated in the affidavit filed by him that enforcement of the scheme and removal of violations, if any, committed by any one is a matter which concerns the Municipal Corporation and not the Director of Town & Country Planning. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that although the Corporation claims to have initiated action against those who have violated the scheme, the same has not reached its logical conclusion and may never do so unless this Court intervenes to issue a clear direction to the competent authority to look into the matter and take effective action against those guilty of violating the scheme. It is further contended by him that the violations referred to in para No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation are not the only violations and that the petitioners could be given liberty to make a fresh representation to the Mayor of the Corporation pointing out all such violations as may have been committed in the area not only in the scheme that is duly sanctioned but also the supplementary scheme area which has not been sanctioned but where also certain constructions have been raised contrary to the Municipal Laws and Bye Laws. We see no reason to decline the prayer made by the petitioners for permission to make a suitable representation. We also see no reason why action already initiated by the Municipal Corporation should not be taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable time period. If the scheme has been duly sanctioned as indeed it has been, there is no reason why the Municipal Authorities CWP No. 5531 of 2008 [5] should turn a blind eye to the violations thereof especially when the violations affect the residents of the area who have reasons in remote against the same. We would have expected the Corporation Authorities to expedite the determination of violations and take effective measures for removal of the same but nothing of the sort having been done, we are left with no alternative except to intervene in public interest. We need to remember that violation of the Municipal Bye-Laws are not just a matter between the citizens who violate and the Corporation who is supposed to enforce such Bye Laws but may more often than not affect other residents of the area as indeed is the position in the present case. When green areas and parks meant for residents are illegally sold or utilised for raising constructions, it is not simply a matter of disrespect to the Municipal Bye Laws but also an encroachment on the rights of the residents for whose benefits such parks have been laid out. It is, therefore, natural that violations are complained against by residents of the area as has been done in the instant case. That is an additional reason why the Municipal Corporation ought to take the matter seriously. We accordingly allow this petition but only in part and to the extent that the Corporation shall take the action initiated against those who are found to have violated the sanctioned scheme for area No. 4-A, Patiala to its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with law and after due notices to the persons who are likely to be effected by such action. We permit the petitioners to make a suitable representation to the Municipal Corporation, Patiala pointing out any other violations CWP No. 5531 of 2008 [6] in respect of the sanctioned Area No. 4-A mentioned above or the supplementary scheme area referred to in the writ petition. On receipt of the representation, the competent authority in the Corporation shall look into the allegations, have the areas inspected and in case it is noticed that there are any violations of the scheme or the prevalent Municipal Bye Laws, action in regard to removal of such violations shall also be initiated in accordance with law. The needful shall be done expeditiously but not later than six months from the date a copy of the order is furnished to the Corporation. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE 13.10.2009 'ravinder'