CWP No. 15703 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15703 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.08.2011 Amarjit Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has raised construction strictly as per sanctioned plan, however, when officers of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 threatened to demolish the boundary wall, saying it has been constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan over the municipal land, the petitioner immediately filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5474 of 2009 before this Court. CWP No. 5474 of 2009 was disposed of vide judgment dated July 29th, 2010 (Annexure P/3) with a direction that the Municipal Corporation shall ensure that the building is strictly in consonance with the building plan sanctioned on 2nd June, 2009. He further contends that without any spot inspection to find out as to whether building is in consonance with the building plan, respondent No. 2 has demolished the boundary wall on April 25th, 2011 in gross violation of this Court's order dated 29.7.2010 (Annexure P/3). Learned counsel further states that the petitioner has once again raised the boundary wall on the spot, which is strictly in CWP No. 15703 of 2011 2 .. consonance with the sanctioned plan and is on the land owned by the petitioner and no part of the Municipal land has ever been encroached upon by the petitioner. Since the respondents are adamant to demolish the boundary wall without adopting due course of law, the petitioner has once again approached this Court by way of present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on being asked, has stated that no notice has ever been issued to the petitioner for the demolition of the boundary wall. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Santosh Vs. State of Punjab 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 129 has held as under :- “8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on Section 269 of the 1976 Act, which is reproduced as under :- "269 :-Order of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works in certain cases and appeal :- (1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 262 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or bye- laws made thereunder, the Commissioner may, in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed within such period (not being less than three days from the date on which a copy of the order of demolition with a brief statement of the reasons therefor has been delivered to that person) as may be specified in the order of demolition :- Provided that no order of demolition shall be made unless the person has been given by means of a notice served CWP No. 15703 of 2011 3 .. in such manner as the Commissioner may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be made : Provided further that where the erection or work has not been completed, the Commissioner may by the same order or by a separate order, whether made at the time of the issue of the notice under the first proviso or at any other time, direct the person to stop the erection of work until the expiry of the period within which an appeal against the order of demolition, if made may be preferred under sub-section (2). (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner made under sub-section (1) may prefer an appeal against the order to the Court of the District Judge of the City within the period specified in the order for the demolition of the erection or work to which it relates. (3) Where an appeal is preferred under sub-section (2) against an order of demolition, the Court of the District Judge may stay the enforcement of that order on such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may think fit : Provided that where the erection of any building or execution of any work has not been completed at the time of the making of the order of demolition shall be made by the Court of the District Judge unless security, sufficient in the opinion of the Court, has been given by the appellant for not proceeding with such erection of work pending the disposal of the appeal. (4) xx xx xx xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx xx xx xx (6) xx xx xx xx xx xx" A plain reading of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 269 of the 1976 Act quoted above, clearly shows that a notice is to be given to the aggrieved persons before the process of demolition starts. It further specifies CWP No. 15703 of 2011 4 .. that if reply to the notice is not found to be satisfactory, the competent authority would be in a position to reject the claim of the affected party. The aggrieved persons under sub-section (2) of Section 269 of the 1976 Act then can prefer an appeal to the Court of the District Judge of the City where the work of demolition is to take place. We agree with this argument put forward by the petitioner's counsel.” Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record and judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh (supra), in the opinion of this court, the present writ petition can be disposed of at admission stage. Present petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and to hear the petitioner on the show cause notice before demolition, strictly in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the matter of Santosh (supra). If the petitioner succeeds in proving that he has raised construction in consonance with the sanctioned building plan and he is not encroacher over any part of the Municipal land, then, there will be no question of demolishing the construction raised by the petitioner. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 25.08.2011 som