CWP No.5597 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5597 of 1988 Date of Decision:- February 22, 2010 Amit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh, through the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Amrit Lal Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. Through this writ petition, petitioner seeks for direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents and the staff from demolishing any portion of his construction, to restrain the respondents from, in any manner interfering with the construction and superstructure raised in accordance with the plan submitted and to his possession as it stood on 23.6.1998. The petitioner also seeks for relief of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for damages caused by the authorities. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted a building plan for sanction for putting up construction on his property as per the provisions of Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and if offer for sanction is not expressly rejected within a period of six months, the permission shall be deemed to have been given, without prejudice to the restriction signified in the plan under Section 4 of the said Act. The petitioner’s grievance is that his plan had not been expressly rejected and therefore, the construction which he had put up, could not have been interfered with by the respondents. 3. The respondent’s contention was that the plan that had been CWP No.5597 of 1988 -2- submitted was examined by the Architect, who recommended the rejection of the building plan. However, since the files have been lost, the petitioner could not be served with notice of rejection of the building plan. 4. The written statement, in my view, does not still enable the respondents to skirt the deeming provision of permission engrafted through Section 6. No order of demolition could have been done merely on the recommendation of the Architect. The petitioner was therefore, entitled to seek the restraint against the respondents from enjoying his property which conformed to its building plan, said to have been filed with the respondents for approval. 5. The petitioner seeks for the relief of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the alleged damage caused to the construction made by the petitioner. The response to this contention in the written statement was that the petitioner had begun constructing a shed in a dimension of 25 ft. X 12 ft. subsequent to the writ petition. He had let out the property to Mohindra and Mohindra Private Limited, who were using the same for parking their jeeps, tractors and other vehicles. Pending the disposal of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this court had appointed the District and Sessions Judge, Vigilance, Haryana to inspect the property and file a report. The copy of the report dated 28.7.1988 is the part of the record and photographs filed alongwith report themselves depict a demolished portion of a pillar and a situation of a brick wall. On the western side, the said wall has been constructed to one or two brick levels, above the ground level. The Commissioner has noted that the foundation below the ground was about 1½ feet deep. The report also noted down that several angles have been broken and barbed wire fence was found in one portion of the building and in the northern portion of the land, a drain was found to be dug. It is not possible from the observations that any damage to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, as claimed by the petitioner, has been proved. The proper CWP No.5597 of 1988 -3- remedy for the petitioner ought to have been only to lead evidence for any actual damage caused at the building and with such sketchy proof available for the status of the property, it shall not be possible for me to enter a finding in favour of the petitioner to award the amount as claimed for damages. 6. Learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the petitioner has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa 1993 (2) SCC 746, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the issue of awarding damages for tortious actions as a public law remedy under Article 21. In the said case, the claim for damages arose at the instance of the mother for the death of the son in policy custody. The death was a proven fact and further that he had died during the time when he was in policy custody, has also been brought out in the course of proceedings. This decision spells a wide proposition that grant of damages brought in protection of human rights, is not an anathema to the constitutional scheme and in appropriate cases, the court shall order damages for loss of precious life. Damage to property is not in the same league as violation of human rights. Further the ascertainment of damage to property shall be a matter of definite evidence and cannot be founded on conjectural estimations. 7. The petitioner’s plea regarding the effect of Section 6 of deemed approval to building plan is upheld and to that extent the petitioner is entitled to protection of his building in the manner completed as per the building plan submitted to the respondent. The claim for damages for building and the quantum does not stand established and it is rejected. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. February 22, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE