CWP No. 6768 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6768 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.5.2010 Hakumat Rai Gupta ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, whereby they had put red cross-marks on the pillars of the house of the petitioner on 7.4.2010 which is an indication that the same were to be demolished, without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to him and also various writs of mandamus to the respondents viz. not to exercise their powers arbitrarily and discriminatory. Further writ of mandamus was also sought directing the respondents to carry out re-demarcation of the area in question as per the scheme of the respondent-Corporation without biased approach. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended CWP No. 6768 of 2010 -2- that the respondent-Corporation has put a mark in red on the pillars of the house of the petitioner on 7.4.2010, which is an indication that the same were to be demolished, without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to him. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had constructed his house within his limits with the support of the pillars in question and no violation or encroachment has ever been made by him. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 9.4.2010 for today, it was directed that status quo shall be maintained by the parties till today. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6, on instructions from Mr. K.S. Kahlon, the Legal Advisor of the respondent-Corporation, present in Court, submits that the respondent- Corporation shall not take any action for demolition of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The learned counsel further states that the petitioner may submit a detailed and comprehensive representation taking all the grounds mentioned in this writ petition and also any additional ground to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, within two weeks from today, and in case, it is done, decision shall be taken thereon by the respondent-Corporation, within four weeks of the date of receipt thereof after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Aggarwal further states that in case any order adverse to the interests of the petitioner is passed in the matter, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith and also kept in abeyance for next four weeks from the date of communication to the petitioner to enable him to take CWP No. 6768 of 2010 -3- recourse to the remedies available to him in law. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to a photograph, Annexure P-10, additionally submits that the boundary wall of the house of the petitioner has already been demolished by the respondent-Corporation. The counsel states that the petitioner is an old man and has been living in the house for the last many years, along with his son, three grand daughters and a minor grandson and with the demolition of the wall the house would become prone to safety hazards. The petitioner is genuinely apprehending danger to his properties as well as the human life, in the absence of the outer wall of the house. The counsel, thus, submits that till the matter is finally resolved, the petitioner may be permitted to re-construct the boundary wall of house at his own costs and the reconstruction of the wall will not entitle the petitioner to claim any equity or confer any right on him in case the same is ultimately found to be an illegal encroachment after the decision of the representation to be made in this regard in terms of this order. The counsel further submits that after the conclusion of the matter, if ultimately it is found that the petitioner did not have legal right to construct the said wall, the same will be got demolished by the petitioner himself at his own expenses. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statements of the learned counsel for the parties. May 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) RKMalik/gbs JUDGE