AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The Petitioner, who complains of danger to his own building being an occupant, is a lessee of the property belonging to Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) cited as the 6th Respondent, contends that Respondents 11 and 12 have put up constructions after taking a sub-lease of the property that belonged to BBMB. The Petitioner''s grievance is that he is the personal occupant of the shop in the immediate proximity in Door No. 45, while the shops in Door No. 43 and 44 have come by the possession of the Respondents 10 to 12 and they have carried out substantial alterations, additions and constructions without due sanction from the municipality. The new constructions, according to the Petitioner, imperil public safety by carrying out high rise constructions without sanction or plan, being violative of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911.
The 6th Respondent is represented through counsel and they have filed written statement contending that the property in shop No. 43 and 44 had been let only to the 10th Respondent, but they have been sub let in favour of Respondents 11 and 12 and admits to constructions being unauthorized. The first Respondent claims that he has terminated lease in favour of 10th Respondent and has initiated action for eviction u/s 5 of the Public Premises Act and the petition is still pending before the Estate Officer.
The municipality has also filed the written statement and it states explicitly in para 4 that Respondents 11 and 12 did not get any plan approved for the construction from the answering Respondent. Respondents 10 to 12 have filed written statement contending that the market buildings which are in the occupation respectively of the Petitioner and the Respondents are under the control of BBMB and the constructions have been made in the year 1948-49. The Petitioner himself is not in any way concerned with Shop No. 43-44 and the Petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection. It is further stated that the Petitioner himself has raised unauthorized construction and he is not entitled to complain of any statutory violations against the Respondents.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out to the statutory provision u/s 189 of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911, which reads as follows:
Prohibition of building without sanction.-(1) No person shall erect or re-erect or commence to erect or re-erect building without the sanction of the committee.
(2) Notice of building-Every person who intends to erect or re-erect any building shall give notice in writing to the committee of such intention.
(3) Building bye-laws.- A committee shall by bye-law-
(a) prescribe the manner in which notice of the intention to erect or re-erect a building shall be given to the committee;
(b) require that with every such notice shall be furnished a site plan of the land on which it is intended to erect or re-erect such building, and a plan and specification of the building of such character and with such details as the bye-law may require;
(c) where the building appears likely to be used as a factory, require the provision of adequate housing accommodation in connection therewith.
Section 193 empowers the Committee to sanction or refuse erection or re-erection of buildings. Section 195 describes the penalty for disobedience and also grants the power to the Committee to require a building to be demolished or altered so far as necessary to avoid contravention of a building scheme drawn up u/s 192. There is a statutory provision for an appeal to the Committee against any notice of demolition given by the Executive Officer.
It bears out clearly that the construction has been made without following the statutory provisions relating to the construction and reconstruction of buildings within the municipal limit. I am not prepared to examine the issue of whether the construction causes any threat to public safety. I cannot also make any observation relating to whether the construction operates to constitute an encroachment of public property. All that I can see on admitted facts is that there has been a fresh construction made in the shop in the possession of Respondents 10 to 12 without sanction from the municipality in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911.
I cannot direct any precipitative act of demolition without putting the parties to notice. The action initiated by BBMB for eviction u/s 5 may not itself be sufficient to conclude the issue of whether the construction could be allowed to stay put at the property in violation of the statutory provisions. I believe the interest of justice would be met if direction is issued to the 3rd Respondent to initiate action in the light of the provisions referred to above. The action shall be initiated within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to state that the Respondents 10 to 12 shall be afforded an opportunity to explain the stand before any order is passed. This is independently of the right of the BBMB to secure eviction in accordance with law in pursuit of the petition alleged to have been filed under the Punjab Premises Act. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has brought the issue of statutory violation before the Court, the Petitioner shall also be served with notice to join enquiry and to assist the municipality with such details as it may become necessary for action that is directed to be taken through this order. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
The Petitioner has also filed the contempt petition contending that the Respondents 10 to 12 have put up construction in spite of the order of restraint by the Court. The Respondents have filed a reply contending that no construction has been made after passing an order of the Court. I cannot secure definite evidence of violation of the Court order as having been established by the only assertion that construction is made subsequent to the order of the Court. I have already disposed of the above writ petition giving authority to the Municipal Committee to take appropriate action for violation of statutory provision relating to construction or alteration of buildings within the municipal limit. If there is any violation, the direction given in the writ petition itself will govern the situation and I do not think that there is any need to pass orders in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is directed to be closed. Contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.