CWP No.6104 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6104 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 **** Sukhdev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. SK Sahore, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4010, 5346, 5688, 5689, 6104 & 6648 of 2010 as issues involved in these cases are common in nature. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.6104 of 2010. (2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order-cum-notice dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure P7) whereby the second respondent while invoking his powers under Section 146 (2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 (in short, ‘the 1995 Act’) has directed the petitioner to remove the alleged CWP No.6104 of 2010.doc - 2 – unauthorized construction/building and restore to its original state within a period of two months failing which the authorities shall be constrained to remove the unauthorized construction at the cost of the petitioner. (3). The petitioner’s case is that the subject land was purchased by him on 4th October, 1993 and the shop thereupon was constructed immediate thereafter. It is further averred that in view of the Notification dated 05.10.1995 issued by the State Government under Section 143(1) of the 1995 Act, the construction raised by the petitioner though abutting the National Highways, deserves to be protected as the 1995 Act has come into operation prospectively. (4). Respondents No.1&2 have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that the shops have been unauthorisedly constructed by the petitioner on National Highway No.21 and the said construction needs to be removed for expansion of the National Highway and also in terms of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. It is, however, maintained that no record whatsoever was produced by the petitioner in order to show that the construction raised by him was before the coming into force of the 1995 Act. On the CWP No.6104 of 2010.doc - 3 – contrary, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the sufficient documentary proof to establish his claim. (5). In these circumstances and also keeping in view the fact that the impugned order is not a reasoned order, I allow the writ petition(s) to the extent that the impugned order dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure P7) is set aside with liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply/objection(s) along with documentary proof(s), if any, before respondent No.2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On receipt thereof, respondent No.2 shall hold a fact-finding enquiry and pass an appropriate order preferably by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and/or other affected persons, may be in their representative capacity. Respondent No.2 shall pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of two months from the date of submission of the objection(s) by the petitioner(s) or other affected person. (6). If the petitioner(s) fails to submit his objection(s) within the stipulated period, the 2nd respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. (7). Needless to say that if the construction(s) is/are found to have been raised before the 1995 Act came into force, the CWP No.6104 of 2010.doc - 4 – same shall stand protected otherwise the law will take its own course. (8). The objection raised by the petitioner(s) regarding competence of respondent No.2 is turned down in the light of the Notification dated 17th August, 1995 (Annexure R4). (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 07.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge