IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21594 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (Housing). …Petitioner Versus Additional Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, challenging order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.2 – Additional Chief Administrator under the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby order of the Estate Officer has been set aside and revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P/5) by respondent No.1 – Additional Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, CWP No.21954 of 2011 Government of Punjab, (exercising the powers of Revisional Authority) under the Act. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is none-else then the Estate Officer of the GMADA, who is challenging the order of its own authority i.e. the Additional Chief Administrator and the Additional Secretary, exercising the powers of Revisional Authority. The Housing Commissioner vide order dated 30.04.1984 (Annexure P/1) cancelled the allotment of H.No. HE-43, Phase IV, SAS Nagar, on the ground of non execution of the Hire Purchase Agreement and not removing the unauthorized construction. After appraisal of the evidence on record by the Additional Chief Administrator set aside order of Housing Commissioner vide order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P/3) coming to a conclusion that most of the unauthorized constructions are compoundable as per the new policy and the undertaking to get those compounded has been given on 06.08.1985. The Additional Chief Administrator had recorded a finding as under:- “As per report most of the unauthorized construction is compoundable and during hearing the appellant has shown his willingness to pay compounding fee for unauthorized construction. Keeping in view the entire facts of the case the orders of cancellation dated 30.03.1984 are set aside. The case is remanded to the Estate Officer (H) that the needful action be initiated in regard to conveyance deed submitted by the allottee. So far the unauthorized construction is concerned on the 2 CWP No.21954 of 2011 record of this case a letter (No. 3919 dated 29.8.86) is available, in which Asstt. Manager Estate, Punjab Housing Development Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali has informed, Housing Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board Chandigarh that for getting the unauthorized construction regularized the information be sought from the office of Sr. Architect because the allottee has submitted plant to this office, but no decision has been received from Sr. Architect. During hearing the original allottee has submitted that he did not get any information from the Head Office in regard to submitting of plan and that is why he did not submit any plan. But, Estate Officer in order to dispose of the matter regarding unauthorized construction, keeping in view the entire facts of the case, the needful action be initiated keeping in view the act, rules and policies in a time bound manner.” From the reading of the findings recorded by Additional Chief Administrator, it is clear that he has remanded the case to the Estate Officer for initiating appropriate action to execute conveyance deed submitted by the allottee. The Additional Chief Administrator has also held that as far as unauthorized constructions are concerned, they can regularized in view of letter No. 3919 dated 28.08.1986 as has been informed by the Senior Architect. The Estate Officer preferred revision against order dated 19.08.2009 to Additional Secretary to Govt. The said finding of fact has been affirmed by the Additional Secretary vide order dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P/5) and has observed as under:- 3 CWP No.21954 of 2011 “After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that the respondent No.1 had fulfilled all the conditions as laid down by the PUDA. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the orders of the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, Mohali and this revision petition is dismissed.” In view of the finding of facts recorded by the Appellate and Revisional Authority under the Act, we are of the opinion that the orders of the authorities do not call for any interference, as no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, present petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed in limine. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE November 22, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4