The importance of providing a clear and specific show cause notice to the violator, specifying the violation made and stating the reasons for calling upon the person to show cause.

1. The appellant is alleged to have unauthorizedly constructed a double-shuttered shop at the edge of the road measuring 17'.00"x 13'.6", on the open space and in front of his existing house at Rajpura without obtaining permission from the BOCA (herein after `the Authority'). The building line of the existing shop from the centre of the road is hardly 19 feet as against the prescribed distance of 25 feet as per the Master Plan. He is alleged to have committed violation of the Master Plan as well as Ribbon Development Act. He is further alleged to have raised 1'-3" wide projection overhanging over the road. He has also disturbed the existing building line. It is the further allegation against the appellant that the land use of the area is residential but by constructing shops the appellant has acted against the Master Plan. The appellant, alleges the respondent, also failed to establish his title over the land where he has erected twin shops. It is rather alleged that he has raised shop on the State (PWD) land unauthorizedly built up area = 278 sft & Balcony Projection = 23 sft. The Executive Officer (BOCA) communicated the above to this Tribunal vide no. BS/65-66 dated 26.6.2001.

2. On noticing the violation, Khilafwarzi Officer, MCJ served a notice in terms of Section 7(1) of the COBO Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the appellant vide his No.MJ/Estt/4/1/KWO/2001 dated 17.4.2001 telling the appellant that he had laid slab (lintel) on a likely `basement' at Rajpura & asked him to explain within 48 hours as to why the same be not demolished as he had not sought permission under Section 4 of the Act. It appears that he did not show any reason/cause, therefore, the Authority served a final notice under Section 7(3) of the Act commanding him to demolish the said construction within five days failing which the respondent would do the same itself, at his risk & cost. The appellant challenged this final notice no.MJ/Estt/4/3/KWO/2001 dated 25.4.2001 through this appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that he is the owner-in-possession of house no.365 constructed on land measuring 6 marlas & 107 sft situate at Rajpura; that the shops were constructed over the said land way back some ten years ago but he had replaced the wooden batons' roof by a RCC lintel; that appellant's son has been running a shop M/s Sharp Vision, and deals in Electrical goods over there; that he has not disturbed the alignment but made only said renovation; that he has not been provided an opportunity of being heard by way of a show cause notice and that he has not encroached any piece state land.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the entire record available on file. In the first place, the appellant cannot say that he has been condemned unheard & no opportunity to show cause was awarded to him in as much as he himself has annexed the notice u/s 7(1) of the Act, which is in the nature of shows cause. Therefore the plea that he was not given any audience before issuing a final order under section 7(3) of the Act is not tenable. The appellant, however, did not show cause in reply to said notice for the reasons best known to him and as such he cannot plead non-service of a show cause notice. Regarding title qua the land, the appellant very fairly pleaded in the memo of appeal that he is the owner of the house no.365 situated at Rajpura & has annexed a copy of the GR No.000048 dated 11.6.1998 issued by Tehsildar JDA in proof of payment of development charges for plot no.713,where house no.365 has been constructed. Learned advocated appearing for the appellant has submitted that said shops were constructed in front of the house ten years ago & the appellant has changed the wooden roof by a RCC lintel only, though permission was not obtained but it is only a bona fide act on the part of the innocent appellant. In fact when the appellant has come up with a tangible case in his memo of appeal I wonder why the respondent did not counter it by way o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document