IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9816 of 2009 Date of decision: May 05, 2010 Baljit Singh and another Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents 2. CWP No. 14586 of 2009 Sukhjinder Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents 3. CWP No. 15341 of 2009 Mohinder Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents 4. CWP No. 15207 of 2009 Mohinder Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents 5. CWP No. 15324 of 2009 Hardeep Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- CWP No. 9816 of 2009 - 2 - Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ----- K. KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. All the cases address the same issue and with the consent of both the counsel, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. The reference to the petitioner shall be in the first Writ Petition No. 9816 of 2009 and the reasons given for the case will follow for other petitions also. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 was amended which came into force on 1.7.1995 and it exempted constructions on scheduled roads and by-passes that have been made prior to coming into force of 1963 Act. Constructions that had been put up between the period of enforcement of 1963 Act and coming into force of the 1995 Act are also to be exempted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners plead that the decision to remove the encroachments shall be taken only after sufficient opportunity for the petitioners is given to participate in the enquiry contemplated under Section 143 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made reference to report in the shape of an affidavit that had been obtained through Assistant Engineer by Executive Engineer about the status of construction made by the petitioners and as per the report constructions have been made before 1995. 5. I do not propose to take a decision on whether the constructions which the petitioners have put up would avail for exemption, even if the constructions have been made before the year 1995. The matter requires proper opportunity to be given to the petitioners to CWP No. 9816 of 2009 - 3 - state their case and hence summary order of removal of construction is set aside. The matter shall be examined in the light of the report and by applying the law as it stands, which consideration shall include whether the construction made before the year 1995 shall be entitled to any exemption from the provisions of Section 143. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to offer to the petitioners opportunity first to adduce such proof in support of the contentions as they deemed necessary. 6. The Writ Petitions are allowed in above terms. The decision be taken by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (K. KANNAN) 05.05.2010 JUDGE reena