Civil Writ Petition No. 17951 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 17951 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.7.2009 Manmohan Singh and Others …Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.5. T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to remove, what according to the petitioners, is an encroachment made by respondent No.5 on certain portions of Circular Road, starting from Jassa Singh Hall to Batala. Civil Writ Petition No. 17951 of 2008 (O&M) 2 The respondents have appeared and filed their respective counter-affidavits. While respondent No.5 has denied having made any encroachment on any public property or road and accused the petitioners of malafides behind the filing of this writ petition in public interest. Respondent No.3-Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Batala, has alleged that violations have been committed by respondent No.5 inasmuch as the steps leading to the shop constructed by him are on the street itself and the construction of entire building is without sanction of the requisite building plans. An affidavit has been filed by Tehsildar, Batala, on behalf of respondent No.4 also. From a reading of said affidavit, it appears that a demarcation was done on 20.2.2008 by Halqa Kanungo in the presence of Section Office, Municipal Council, Batala, including respondent No.5, the alleged encroacher apart from others. The affidavit suggests that there is no encroachment by respondent No.5 over the road in question. We have heard at some length learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Three distinct aspects are sought to be highlighted by the petitioners in these proceedings. The first aspect is whether respondent No.5 has encroached upon any part of public property or any road. The second aspect relates to the absence of sanction of the building plans for the construction of building by respondent No.5 while the third aspect relates to the violation of the plans or the municipal bye-laws in the actual construction of the building. In so far as the question of encroachment is concerned, the revenue authorities appear to have undertaken a demarcation of the site and come to the conclusion that Civil Writ Petition No. 17951 of 2008 (O&M) 3 there is no encroachment. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not satisfied with that conclusion and submits that a fresh measurement and demarcation of the site is necessary to bring the true facts to light. We do not, in these proceedings, propose to issue any direction for a fresh measurement nor also we propose to go into the question whether or not there is any encroachment on the road. All that we need say is that in case the competent authority namely the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Batala, is of the opinion that the reports submitted by the revenue agencies are not for any reason acceptable or the same require any further verification, he can take up the matter with the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, respondent No.4, for a fresh measurement and demarcation of the site in which event the Deputy Commissioner would have the needful done to bring the true facts to light. So also the question whether there is any violation of the municipal bye-laws by respondent No.5 in the matter of reconstruction and/or remodeling of the building in question, we find that the Municipal Council, had issued a notice under Sections 195 & 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, a copy whereof has been placed as Annexure P3 with the writ petition. The receipt of said notice is not disputed by respondent No.5. According to him, a request for composition of the violation has already been made and the compounding fee also deposited. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 was, however, unable to give us any satisfactory explanation for the failure of the said respondent in taking an appropriate decision in the matter pursuant to the notice marked Annexure P3 and the request for composition, if any, received from respondent No.5. All that he submitted was that if so Civil Writ Petition No. 17951 of 2008 (O&M) 4 directed, the Council shall take appropriate steps to conclude the proceedings and pass an appropriate order within such time as may be fixed by this Court. Even in regard to the violation committed by respondent No.5 regarding the construction of the steps to the shop on a part of the public road, counsel for respondent No.3 sought time to take appropriate action for removal/composition of the said violation, if it is otherwise compoundable. Suffice it to say that all the three aspects which the petitioners have raised need to be looked into by the competent authority and appropriate orders on the subject passed in accordance with law, expeditiously. We, accordingly, dispose off this writ petition with the direction that respondent No.3 shall expedite action in regard to all the three aspects mentioned above and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as far as possible within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to him. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 28, 2009 “DK”