Civil Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2010 Date of decision: May 5, 2010 Rajesh Gupta and another --- Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --- Respondents ---- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ---- Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana whereby they had put red cross-marks on the pillars/boundary wall of the house of the petitioner on 7.4.2010 thereby giving an indication that the same were to be demolished, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to them. It was pleaded that in case the respondents wanted to take the possession of any area of the petitioners' house, mentioned in the sale deeds, to widen the road, it ought to be Civil Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2010 -2- measured from both the ends and even for parting with that piece of area, compensation should also be paid to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the boundary wall and the pillars as shown in the photograph, Annexure P-16, exist on the land of the petitioners which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 want to demolish forcibly. It was further submitted that for the aforesaid action, the respondents' stand is that the persons who had purchased houses after the year 1976 only have to give land for the purpose of widening the street. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that the respondent-Corporation has put a mark in red on the pillars/boundary walls of the house of the petitioners on 7.4.2010, thereby giving an indication that the same were to be demolished, without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to them. The counsel further submits that the petitioners had constructed their house within their limits and no violation or encroachment has ever been made by them. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 22.4.2010 for today, it was directed that status quo shall be maintained by the parties till today. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6, on instructions from Mr. K.S. Kahlon, the Legal Advisor of the respondent-Corporation, present in Court, submits that the respondent- Corporation shall not take any action for demolition of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. The counsel further states that the petitioners may submit a detailed and comprehensive representation taking all the grounds mentioned in this writ petition and also any additional ground to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, within two weeks from today, and in case, it is done, decision shall be taken thereon by the respondent- Corporation, within four weeks of the date of receipt thereof after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Mr. Aggarwal further states Civil Writ Petition No. 7135 of 2010 -3- that in case any order adverse to the interests of the petitioners is passed in the matter, the same shall be intimated to the petitioners forthwith and also kept in abeyance for next four weeks from the date of communication to the petitioners to enable them to take recourse to the remedies available to them in law. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. May 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) *RKMALIK*/gbs JUDGE