Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2011 Shiv Charan ...Petitioner Versus Chief Administrator and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. I.P. Atre, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside of order dated 03.01.2002 (Annexure P-2) whereby Transit Site No. 406, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, U.T., Chandigarh allotted to him has been cancelled. On 17.12.1998, the petitioner was allotted this transit site. The petitioner has averred that he is poor and daily wage earner and was to raise one sleeping room, kitchen and toilet on this site. As per the petitioner, because of his economic condition it was difficult for him to adhere the schedule regarding construction. Otherwise also he pleads that being illiterate he could not clearly appreciate and understand this requirement of law for completing the site in time bound period. Because of these reasons and the paucity of resources on his part, he could hardly save any surplus amount for raising the construction. The Building Inspectors during their regular surveys, however, detected violation in the site. On the basis thereof, Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the allotment of site was cancelled on 03.01.2002. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same, which was dismissed on the ground of non-construction of the total super structure within the prescribed limit. The total area of the site is 20'x10'. The area of the plot is stated to be so small that there is hardly any distance between kitchen and toilet. The administration's energy is being spent on conducting the survey of these colonies where poor resides. The petitioner has, however, subsequently completed the construction as per the plans and submitted an affidavit in this regard. Still, the respondents/authorities have not shown any consideration to the petitioner and have not had a change of mind in regard to the order of cancellation of this site. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition. Written statement has been filed. The stand taken in the reply is that as per the report of Building Inspector given on 28.09.2001, 03.10.2001 and 06.11.2001, the site has not been constructed up to the roof level and so the notice for cancellation was issued. The averment made in the petition that the petitioner has now completed the construction is also denied and, accordingly, the prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition. This Court on 07.07.2010 had directed the counsel for the respondents to have instructions whether the petitioner has completed the construction in a manner as alleged by him. Counsel was also required to have further instructions if the petitioner, who belongs to weaker section of society, could be shown some sympathy or compassion so as to enjoy the allotment of plot in his Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 2009 (O&M) 3 favour. Counsel for the respondents had then placed on record the report of Building Inspector, who had visited the site. As per this report, the petitioner had raised construction as per the sanctioned plan and there was no violation found. This report was taken on record. The later part of the direction for withdrawing the cancellation order of course was not complied with. An opportunity was given to the respondents to consider and revoke the impugned order in view of the factual position that the alleged violation had since been removed. The only ground to cancel the allotment was that the construction had not been raised, as per the sanctioned plan that too within the stipulated time. The Court, accordingly, required the counsel to have further instructions in this regard. Another order was passed on 28.03.2011, requiring the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with sympathy. Of course, the respondents continued to show their inability to withdraw the cancellation order. Now an application has been filed detailing reasons why this order cannot be considered till the time the powers are conferred on Additional Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. The attitude adopted by the respondents cannot be appreciated. The condition of the petitioner and the allotment of this site has already been noticed. Is it that the poor persons have to suffer the wrath of powerful administration? The observation made by the court to consider the plight of poor person has gone unheeded. The reason for cancellation of site is that the petitioner had not carried out construction within the stipulated period. His economic condition in this case as pleaded can not be completely ignored. This perhaps would explain the delay. Still the respondents Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 2009 (O&M) 4 are being harsh and unfair. Once the violation is removed, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered accordingly. No cause is made out to adjourn the case as respondents cannot be expected to show any consideration for poor persons. Since the petitioner has now completed the construction, no cause would remain to resume the site. The writ petition, therefore, deserve to be allowed. The impugned order Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 are set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the costs, which is assessed as ` 10,000/-. April 07, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE