IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1817 of 2008. Date of Decision: 16th February, 2009. Hari Ram Gupta Petitioner through Mr. D.S.Malik, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner was allotted a residential plot [measuring 10 Marlas] No. 1935, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal. After construction of his residential house, it appears that the petitioner at one point of time unauthorisedly constructed a shop on the rear side which abuts the main road. The HUDA authorities issued a Show Cause Notice on that count and have resumed the site. It further appears from the record that better sense prevailed upon the petitioner and he removed the unauthorised construction being in violation of the zoning plan and which could not be compounded. This fact was acknowledged by the Estate Officer, HUDA in his report dated 24.6.2004 [Annexure P-4]. Unfortunately, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal took a somersault and questioned the correctness of his own report when the matter was argued before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2007 [Annexure P-5] on the ground that “extra 5% coverage in the back is allowed only on those plots whose back does not touch the sector dividing road” and that “since the violation of the zoning regulations by the petitioner is established”, the resumption order was valid. Even after the appellate order, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal vide his Memo dated 15.11.2007 has written to to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to the following effect:- “Now the applicant has submitted an application along with an affidavit duly attested by Ist Class Magistrate that he has closed commercial activity and removed the excess zoning in the rear courtyard. The site inspection report of the J.E. Is that “it is reported that shop constructed in back yard is demolished photo graphs attached”. In view of the above report it is recommended that the above house may be restored. It is further added that there is no commercial activity running in the house now”. Notwithstanding the said recommendations, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by a cryptic order dated 3.1.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that the unauthorized construction raised in the courtyard has since been removed and does not exist. He has no objection if the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal visits the site and verifies the plea taken by him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the categoric stand taken by the petitioner, which, in a way has been admitted by the respondents in their letters, referred to above, that he has removed the unauthorized construction, I am of the considered view that there is no legal necessity to take any harsh action like resumption of the site against the petitioner. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 28.3.2002, 29.10.2003 and 4.10.2007 [Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5] are quashed with a direction to the respondents to restore the allotment of the site in question in favour of the petitioner, subject to their satisfaction, after visiting the site that there exists no zoning violation at the spot. Disposed of. February 16, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE