C. R. No. 5347 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5347 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 27, 2010 Municipal Corporation, Patiala and another .... Petitioners Vs. M/s S. K. Motors and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Municipal Corporation, Patiala and its Town Planner have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition assailing judgment dated 27.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala, thereby allowing appeal filed by respondents M/s S. K. Motors and its partners Surinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar under Section 269 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, challenging notice dated 24.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) issued by petitioner no.1 Municipal Corporation. C. R. No. 5347 of 2010 2 Site plan of respondents herein for construction of building including basement and three floors was sanctioned by appellant no.1 Corporation. However, appellant no.1 issued notice Annexure P-1 requiring respondent no.1 herein to show cause as to why order for demolition of the building raised by the respondents herein be not made on account of violations of the building plan. Violations mentioned in the notice are reproduced hereunder :- “1. Your lease order has expired on 28/2/07. 2. There is no NOC of the neighbour is available in the file. 3. NOC from the Forest Department was required to be obtained by March 2007 which has not been obtained by you. 4. NOC has not been obtained from the Railway Department. 5. The construction has been started at site.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitiones, after having sought instructions from the petitioners, states that the alleged violations mentioned C. R. No. 5347 of 2010 3 in the show cause notice Annexure P-1 were not mentioned in the order, whereby building plan of respondents herein was sanctioned by petitioner no.1. If the building plan sanctioned by petitioner no.1 did not require the respondents to comply with the aforesaid objections, the petitioners have no right to raise these objections after the respondents have erected building pursuant to sanction of building plan granted by petitioner no.1 Corporation itself. If respondents herein were required to comply with the alleged violations mentioned in the show cause notice, building plan should not have been sanctioned or should have been sanctioned subject to compliance of these objections. However, admittedly, no such condition was stipulated by petitioner no.1 while sanctioning building plan of respondents herein. Consequently, petitioners have no right to order demolition of the building of respondents herein because they have raised the construction pursuant to sanction of building plan granted by petitioner no.1 Corporation itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that objection no.2 mentioned herein above can be raised even now because respondents herein submitted affidavit of one Gurbax Singh as neighbour of the proposed building, having no objection to the sanction of the building plan, but in fact, the neighbouring building is not owned by said Gurbax Singh. The contention is completely beyond the show cause notice and the material on record. No such plea was even raised before the lower appellate court. It is also not mentioned in the show cause notice Annexure P-1 that Gurbax C. R. No. 5347 of 2010 4 Singh, who gave affidavit of `no objection', is not owner of the neighbouring building nor it is mentioned in the show cause notice as to who is the owner of the neighbouring building. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to photographs Annexure P-3 and contended that M/s Goel and Goel is running business in the neighbouring building, but `no objection certificate' was not obtained from M/s Goel and Goel. The contention is completely meritless. Firstly, no such photographs were placed before the lower appellate court and consequently, the photographs now annexed with the instant revision petition cannot be taken into consideration. Secondly, even if the photographs are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that these photographs are of the building being raised by the respondents and the neighbouring building. Thirdly, even if it be assumed that these photographs are of the building being raised by the respondents and neighbouring building, even then the photographs do not show as to who is owner of neighbouring building. M/s Goel and Goel may be tenant or licensee in the said building and Gurbax Singh may be owner thereof. There is no material on record to depict as to who is owner of the said building or to depict that Gurbax Singh is not owner thereof. In fact, there is no pleading or evidence in support of the aforesaid contention nor it arises from the impugned show cause notice. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that the lower appellate court has rightly declared the impugned notice Annexure P-1 to be null and void C. R. No. 5347 of 2010 5 by allowing the appeal filed by respondents herein. The impugned show cause notice is completely illegal and frivolous because petitioner no.1 Corporation itself sanctioned the building plan and respondents herein raised construction pursuant to said sanction and therefore, petitioners cannot ask the respondents to demolish the said building. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 27, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE