Subash Chander Kapoor vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—The petitioner is the owner of a house built on plot having R.P. No. 7031 whereas the immediate neighbour of the petitioner has already constructed his house on plot bearing R.P. No. 8348. The petitioner purchased his property in the year 1989 and at that stage with the prior permission of the previous owner, the owner of plot bearing R.P. No. 8348, had already built a room on the garage portion of his property. It has been averred by the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner with a view to make some construction on the garage portion of his property and also on the remaining area of the second storey, submitted an application to the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh on 20.8.1991 Annexure P1 to the petition in which he pointed out that it was not possible for him to get the consent of the owner of the adjoining property before building the garage portion as was required by the Zoning Plan, but as the neighbour in question, had, with the prior consent of the previous owner of the property now belonging to the petitioner, raised construction on the garage portion, the consent of the neighbour was ipso facto required to be taken as granted and the plan be accordingly sanctioned. The application was duly considered by the Chandigarh Administration and vide communication dated 17.9.1991 Annexure P2, the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration advise the Chairman, Plan Advisory Committee, Department of Architecture Chandigarh Administration that the petitioner may be allowed to construct the first floor of the annexure portion of his house as the neighbour had already done so after getting permission of the previous owner and it was also suggested that action be taken to amend the Zoning Plan so as to eliminate unnecessary harassment to the house owners. Vide letter dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure P4) the Chief Architect and Secretary, Department of Architecture, Chandigarh Administration wrote to the Finance Secretary Administration that the necessary amendment to the Zonal Plan was being made and that general orders may be issued allowing construction over the garage without requiring a no objection certificate from the neighbour. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, has pointed out at the time of the arguments that the matter is under the active consideration of the Administration and the necessary amendment to the Zonal Plan is in the process of being finalised. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the present case the neighbour who is not giving the requisite certificate to the petitioner has in fact taken advantage of the consent given by the previous owner of the house now occupied by the petitioner so as to make the construction on his garage. In this view of the matter, reciprocity cannot be denied to the petitioner and it would be highly unequitable to require the petitioner to submit a No Objection Certificate which is being denied to him by a recalcitrant neighbour. Moreover, as the matter is admittedly under the active consideration of the Government and general orders are likely to be issued for amendment of the Zoning Plan waiving the requirement of a No Objection Certificate, any delay in the sanction of the plan of the petitioner would not only be unjust and uncalled for, but in the days of galloping prices, positively cruel.

For the reasons recorded above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the U.T. Administration to consider the application of the petitioner and to grant the sanction for the construction over the garage portion of his house without insisting on the production of a No Objection Certificate from the neighbour. The entire matter would be decided by the Administration within a period of one month from today. No order as to costs.