IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21538 of 2008 Date of decision: 10th December, 2009 Sunheri Devi … Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Lal Singh, husband of the petitioner Sunheri Devi, was allotted tenement site No.2032, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. This tenement was allotted at a monthly rate of Rs.35/- on 6th May, 1971. Thereafter, Chandigarh Administration flouted a scheme for allotment of low cost tenements at Chandigarh on leasehold and hire purchase basis. Therefore, under the scheme, the tenement was allotted to the husband of the petitioner on leasehold and hire purchase basis and allotment letter (Annexure P-1) was issued on 16th October, 1985. The Chandigarh Administration carried an inspection of the site and found that petitioner has committed violation of the building plan and had raised extra construction. On this ground allotment of the tenement was cancelled vide Annexure P-2 on 4th March, 1991. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that almost everybody in the locality, taking into consideration growing needs of the family, had raised extra construction. Husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed as the statement of the appellant was recorded that they are Civil Writ Petition No. 21538 of 2008 willing to remove all the building violations and one chance be granted to them. Three weeks time was granted to the appellant to remove unauthorized construction. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the extra construction raised could not be removed, as husband of the petitioner died. Petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No.10948 of 1999 and the same was decided on August 9, 2009 and taking into consideration that petitioner is a widow and monsoon is in the full swing, time for removal of the violation was extended upto September, 1999. Case of the petitioner is that she had removed the violations and yet order of eviction was passed and thereafter appeal filed was also dismissed by the appellate authority. A Division Bench of this Court had issued notice in the present writ petition and had ordered status quo with regard to the possession on 23rd December, 2008. Counsel for the petitioner has repeated the assertion before this Court that violations have been removed and the site is in consonance with rules and regulations enforced by the Chandigarh Administration. On 18th November, 2009, this Court passed an order, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, regret that on 16.11.2009 he sought adjournment on the ground that Municipal Corporation is a necessary party. Apology of Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, is accepted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that demised premises, at present, is in consonance with the rules and regulations enforced by Chandigarh Administration and no violation exist. Mr. Amit Aggarwal states that official of the Chandigarh Administration will be instructed to carry an inspection of the premises and report shall be submitted.” 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 21538 of 2008 On 2nd December, 2009, Mr. Amit Aggarwal appeared for the Chandigarh Administration and submitted that inspection was carried and as per the inspection report, violations have been removed and the premises is in consonance with the sanctioned building plan. The inspection report was taken on record. Taking into consideration that petitioner is a widow and is a resident of low cost accommodation and in consonance with the orders earlier passed by a Division Bench of this Court, has removed the violations and the site is in consonance with the rules, regulations and the sanctioned building plan, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, whereby lease in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, be set aside. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P-2, P-4, P-6 and P-7) are set aside. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 10, 2009 rps 3