CWP No.7088 of 1988 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 16.12.2008 1.CWP No.7088 of 1988 Bal Krishan Gupta and others ... Petitioners Versus The Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad, through its Chief Administrator. ... Respondent 2.CWP No.7089 of 1988 Surinder Kumar Vasudeva and others ... Petitioners Versus The Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad, through its Chief Administrator. ... Respondent Present: Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate,for the petitioners. None for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record of the case. This judgment of mine shall dispose of the above said two writ petitions as in both the cases, questions of law and facts are same. The petitioners purchased flats mentioned in the cause title of the writ petitions against their names on the National Highway No.1 CWP No.7088 of 1988 : 2 : at Faridabad from the Hindustan Brown Boveri Limited. It is admitted case of the petitioners that these flats were re-erected and put to commercial use without seeking any permission from the competent authority. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent has approached the petitioners for demolition of the flats for the alleged violation of the land use for commercial purpose without prior permission of the competent authority. The petitioners claim that they made an application dated 18.06.1988 for seeking compounding of the violation, but this application has not been decided till date. The petitioners accordingly filed the present writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the commercial activities of the petitioners and/or demolish the building for the alleged violation of the land use etc. and for a further direction to compound the cases of the petitioners. The petitioners made specific allegations that similarly situated persons also converted the land use and re-erected the flats into commercial premises and their cases have been compounded by the competent authorities. Some such orders have been placed on record by the petitioners for which reference can be made to letters dated 23.11.1984 (Annexure P-4) and 25.03.1987 (Annexure P-5). No reply has been filed by the respondent. At the time of the hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon provisions of Section 56 of CWP No.7088 of 1988 : 3 : the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Municipal Act”). By virtue of Section 56 of the Act, various provisions of the Municipal Act has been applied including Section 208 of the Municipal Act. Section 208 of the Municipal Act deals with the order of demolition and stoppage of building etc. where re-erection of the building has been carried out or completed without or contrary to the sanction or where sanction has been refused or in contravention of any provisions of this Act or bye-laws made thereunder. Section 201 of the Municipal Act prohibits construction of building without sanction. It is admitted case of the petitioners that for conversion of the flats into commercial purposes, no sanction was obtained from the competent authority. Under such circumstances, the respondents are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under the law. However, proviso to Section 208 of the Municipal Act specifically makes a provision for service of Show Cause Notice. It is also the case of the petitioners that no Show Cause Notice was ever served upon them and demolition is sought to be made in gross contravention of the provisions of Section 208 of the Municipal Act as also Section 56 of the Act. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that similar cases like the petitioners have been compounded by the competent authority, but the request of the petitioners has not been CWP No.7088 of 1988 : 4 : considered till date. In view of the above circumstances, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent not to demolish the construction/flats of the petitioners without adopting due course of law. In the event the petitioners have applied or may apply for compounding of the violation, if any, the respondent/competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. While considering such a plea of compounding of the violation, the respondent/competent authority shall also take into consideration the compounding of the violation made in the similar cases particularly those referred to in the writ petitions. No costs. 16.12.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO