CWP No.12536 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12536 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 15, 2011 DR. AMARJIT SINGH BAGGA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MS. JAISHREE THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of resumption of a house which was allotted to the petitioner on the ground that the allotment had been only for residential purposes, but it was not to be used for non- residential purposes. The contention is that the user was only in one room as clinic and that it did not amount to conversion of whole building. Yet another ground which have been taken in the resumption notice was unauthorized construction by covering the front yard, stairs and backyard and the stair in the backyard. Counsel points out to the fact that there was a scheme for composition for unauthorized construction by a Resolution at 72nd Meeting vide agenda Item No.72.86. The counsel states that the petitioner will be willing to pay such compounding charges as rules would require. 2. A user of one room for a clinic, I will not understand to CWP No.12536 of 1989 -2- constitute an unauthorized user to mean a conversion of a residential use to a non-residential building. I will not, therefore, find this to be unauthorized conversion. As regards the complaint of unauthorized construction, I take the undertaking given by the petitioner on record that compounding fee as required under the relevant rules or resolution will be paid by the petitioner on demand, which the respondent may make within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 3. The petitioner is also at liberty to volunteer to secure the details and pay the amount within a further period of 4 weeks if the demand is not made by the respondent in the manner directed above. 4. The order of resumption already passed which is impugned is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. March 15, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE