AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1.6.2007 in CWP No. 863 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the petition filed by the petitioners (appellants herein) and upheld the order passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants raised certain constructions in Dalhousie town. The Municipal Council, Dalhousie received a complaint dated 20.1.2000 alleging that the appellants were raising an unauthorized construction by laying RCC slab on the first floor of hotel Kings, situate at Panjpulla Road, Dalhousie without any prior permission or sanction. A notice was issued to the appellants on 21.11.2000 to stop the construction but they did not stop the construction. Thereafter the employees of the respondent-Council again brought to the notice of the Council on 4.12.2000 the fact that the appellants were still raising unauthorized and illegal construction. Thereafter, the Municipal Council issued show cause notice directing the appellants to show cause why construction be not demolished and fine be not imposed on them.
The matter was placed before the House of the Municipal Council on 8.3.2001. In this meeting, it was resolved to ask the appellants to submit drawings to enable the Council to compound the case as per the Rules. On 22.3.2001, the appellants were again directed to submit the building plan. The appellants did not respond to these notices also and therefore, on 27.6.2001, the Municipal Council, Dalhousie resolved to demolish the unauthorized construction raised by the appellants and pursuant to such decision, orders in this regard were issued by the Executive Officer on 5.7.2001 to demolish the unauthorized construction of the first storey of hotel Kings.
Immediately, thereafter the appellants filed an appeal u/s 212(1) of the Municipal Act, 1994 before the learned District Judge, Chamba, which was dismissed by him on 8.5.2002. Thereafter the writ petition was filed and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 1.6.2007.
The main argument of Shri Suneet Goel, Learned Counsel for the appellants, is that the appellants were never served with notices issued by the Municipal Council and it is also urged that the appellants had got a plan sanctioned and the construction was done in accordance with the plan and at the most there is only a slight deviation from the plan in as much as the sanction was for a restaurant but now a parking area is being constructed.
The learned District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge found that the appellants had repeatedly been warned to stop the construction. Here we are dealing with person who despite various notices and orders passed by the Municipal Council continued to raise construction in total violation of law. The appellants would have this Court believe that they were not aware of various notices issued by the Municipal Council from time to time. When this Court issued notice in this appeal, the appellants were directed to produce the sanctioned plan so that the compounding could be done if possible. The only plan produced was the one sanctioned in the year 1990-1991. This sanctioned plan was only valid for two years and relying upon this plan the appellants could not have raised construction in the year 2000. Admittedly the notice issued by the Municipal Council was served upon one Shri Pankaj. According to the appellants Pankaj was not their employee. However, the appellants have not given any explanation as to who was carrying on the construction on their behalf and who was looking after the construction at Dalhousie. It is more than apparent that the appellants were raising the construction without any sanctioned plan whatsoever. As per the sanctioned plan, the restaurant was to be constructed at least 10 feet away from the road and was to be completed within two years from the date of sanction. The appellants had constructed another floor without prior approval and therefore, the action of the Municipal Council is justified.
We have gone through the record and find that not only a written complaint was received by the Municipal Council but even the officials of the Municipal Council visited the spot and found that some construction was being raised and thereafter notices were served upon the persons at the spot to stop the construction work forthwith. The Municipal Council gave repeated opportunities to the appellants and/or their representatives as employees to put forth their case but they did not do so. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 1.1.2008 is vacated and the Municipal Council is directed to ensure that the demolition of the unauthorized structure is completed by 31st May, 2012. No costs.