Chandigarh chief administrator sets aside order to demolish violation at Sec-15 shop

On June 24, 2016, the sub-divisional magistrate (Central), exercising the powers of the estate officer (EO), had issued an order to demolish the non-sanctionable violations at Shop Number 44, Sector 15

Coming to the aid of the owner of a Sector 15-based shop, the UT chief administrator has set aside a June 2016 order of the estate officer to demolish a violation at the shop and remanded it back for a judicious decision in the matter.

In their appeal against the order, the shop owner and tenant contended that they had submitted the revised building plan in Sept 2015, much before the SDM (central) issued demolition order in June 2016 (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

On June 24, 2016, the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM, Central), exercising the powers of the estate officer (EO), had issued an order to demolish the non-sanctionable violations at Shop Number 44, Sector 15.

Claiming the order was illegal and arbitrary, shop owner Kulwaran Chaudhary and tenant Sudarshan Kumar filed an appeal before the court of Hargunjit Kaur, special secretary finance, exercising the powers of the UT chief administrator.

In the plea, Vikas Jain, counsel for the appellants, stated that the shop was allotted to Chaudhary on May 30, 2006. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the building was required to be constructed according to the sanctioned plan and provisions of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952, as amended from time to time.

During an inspection, it was found that the rear courtyard was changed without getting the revised building plan sanctioned from the competent authority.

Accordingly, the Estate Office issued a show-cause notice on March 14, 2014. But as the building violations were not removed despite affording opportunities to the appellants, the SDM (Central) passed the demolition order on June 24, 2016.

Inspection staff termed violation sanctionable

In the appeal, Jain contended that the appellants had submitted the revised building plan on September 24, 2015. However, the SDM passed the order without seeking the inspection report, wherein the inspection staff had reported that the alleged violation was sanctionable through revised building plans.

Jain also produced a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court, wherein it was held that if any violation was sanctionable, then a demolition order cannot be passed. Thus, the SDM’s order was wrongly passed, he added.

On the contrary, the counsel for the Estate Office stated that the SDM had afforded the appellants sufficient opportunities of hearing while passing the impugned order.

After hearing both the parties and perusing all documents on record, the chief administrator set aside the SDM’s order and remanded the case back to the Estate Office to take a judicious decision in the matter.

“The Estate Office has not been able to say anything about non-release of sanctioned building plans or even able to produce any resumption order. In the absence of necessary documents, how does the impugned order sustain in the eyes of law...when the alleged violation was sanctionable as per the report of the inspecting staff,” the chief administrator said.