Smt. Santosh Kumari v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Dec 2008
- Bench
- M M KUMAR, JORA SINGH
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) JUDGE December 2, 2008 Pkapoor
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Chander Mohan Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 10.8.2004, passed by the Estate Officer- respondent No. 3 cancelling the allotment of House No. 1657, Category HIG, Sector 70, Mohali (P-1), as well as orders 27.4.2006 C.W.P. No. 969 of 2008 2 and 3.7.2007, passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority (P-3 & P-6 respectively) rejecting the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of allotment. The allotment has been cancelled on account of raising of unauthorized construction of toilet and 3 feet projection on both sides by the petitioner.
On 22.1.2008, when the instant petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that unauthorized construction has since been removed and compounding fee has already been deposited. The fact is further fortified from the affidavit dated 5.9.2008, filed by the Estate Officer, GMADA, on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, wherein in para No. 8 it has been disclosed that the field staff carried out a routine inspection on
17.9.2007 and found that all the non-compoundable construction has been removed by the petitioner (R-2/2). The petitioner has also deposited compounding fee of Rs. 10,560/- on her own. It is, thus, undisputed that the unauthorised construction has been removed by the petitioner.
In light of the above mentioned, we quash the impugned orders dated 10.8.2004, 27.4.2006 and 3.7.2007 (P-1, P-3 & P-6). However, keeping in view the fact that that petitioner has committed violation of Building Regulations by raising un-authorised construction, which has continued for a long time, we deem it just and appropriate to impose a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- as contemplated under Section 157 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and C.W.P. No. 969 of 2008 3 Development Act, 1995. The penalty be deposited with the Estate Officer, GMADA, Mohali, within a period of four weeks from today.
Operative part
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) JUDGE December 2, 2008 Pkapoor
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Dec 2008. The bench was M M KUMAR, JORA SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.