IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20170 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION : August 27, 2009. Parties Name Satish Kumar ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Chandigarh Administration and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash orders dated July 9, 2003 (P-1), August 10, 2004 (P-2), August 25, 2004 (P-3), February 22, 2006 (P-4) and March 19, 2008, (P-6), passed by the respondents with regard to cheap house No. 2368, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh. Counsel for the parties heard. Petitioner is an allottee of the above said site, the lease of which was cancelled vide order dated July 9, 2003 (P-1) on the ground that he had committed the building violations. His appeal, revision etc. have failed. At the time of arguments on August 10, 2009, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a poor man. He has no other residential accommodation to live in. It was further stated that earlier the building violations could not be removed because in the Ist and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20170 OF 2008 -2- 2nd floor, his brother was sitting with whom relations of the petitioner were strained and he did not allow the petitioner to rectify the building violations. In the meantime, after possession of the site was taken over by the respondents, matter has been compromised and his brother has permitted him to remove the building violations. By taking note of the above said facts, following order was passed by this Court on August 10, 2009: “Counsel for the respondents seeks time to get instructions as to whether it is possible, at this stage, to give an opportunity, to the petitioner to remove the building violations, within a stipulated period and whether the violations can be compounded, if the petitioner agrees to pay penalty/ compounding fee. Counsel for the petitioner states that earlier, the petitioner failed to remove the building violations because 1st floor and 2nd floor were in possession of his brother, who was not allowing the petitioner to enter that part of the building. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that now the matter has been compromised, between the brothers and his brother is ready to demolish the building, which has been constructed in violation of the Building Bye-laws.” Counsel for the respondents states that she has intimated the Administration regarding the order, mentioned above. In response thereto, she has received a letter dated August 25, 2009, issued by the Accounts Officer, Estate Office, UT Chandigarh, copy of which has been placed on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20170 OF 2008 -3- record, therein it is mentioned as under: “In this connection, it is to inform you that there is no objection if the Hon'ble Court give an opportunity to the petitioner to remove the building violations from the site within a stipulated period. But construction only upto 75% coverage of plot area at Ground Floor and First Floor has been allowed by the Administration vide notification dated 18.12.2000. But no construction at 2nd floor is allowed at present.” In view of contents of the letter, mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Administration to return possession of the site in dispute to the petitioner, who shall then remove the building violations to the satisfaction of the administration within a period of two months. Then, after inspection, the building violations be regularised and the building be restored to the petitioner as per rules by charging fee etc. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge August 27, 2009. DKC