Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 2099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Devender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 36932 of 2019
Decided On : 16-12-2020
For the Parties : Mr. Nihal Chand Kinra, Mr. Rohit Arya DAG, Haryana, Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Mr. Gulam Nabi Malik
Headnote:(A) Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 - Sections 201, 203A, 205, 208, 208A - Appeal against sealing of property - Petitioner constructed without prior approval; however, the building fell within permissible limits - Public servants are required to act with compassion and ensure timely processing of applications for building plans (Paras 2, 10, 11, 13).
(B) Public officials - Expectations of behavior; empathy and responsiveness to public applications - The handling of the petitioner’s case by Municipal Committee was arbitrary and lacked required empathy (Paras 4, 12).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, possessing a building on land owned by Haryana Wakf Board, faced issues related to rainwater affecting his premises and sought permission for reconstruction, but faced arbitrary denial from the Municipal Committee (Paras 3, 10).
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sealing of the petitioner’s property was an arbitrary exercise of power, necessitating a fair chance for the petitioner to apply for subsequent approval (Paras 14).
Issues: Whether the Municipal Committee’s actions in sealing the petitioner’s property were arbitrary and lacked compassion in dealing with his building application (Paras 2, 12).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that public officials must act compassionately and be prompt in handling applications; the petitioner had complied with legal norms. The court set aside the sealing order, allowing the petitioner to reapply for building approval (Paras 13, 14).
Result: Writ petition allowed; sealing order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of compassionate governance (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's factual background and challenges with municipal committee (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal requirements for building plan sanctions under haryana law (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. compassionate view expected in enforcement actions (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. arbitrary exercise of power by authorities (Para 13) |
| 6. petition allowed; order of sealing set aside (Para 14) |
| 7. encouragement for official accountability and awareness (Para 15) |
Judgment
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.:- The hearing of the case was held through video conference on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.
2. Compassionate empathy should be one of the trait/quality of everyone manning a public office. The Constitution of India emphasizes that the public servants and other persons working in such offices are required to treat everyone equally irrespective of his caste, creed, religion or economic condition. The persons holding such offices are required to be more sympathetic and compassionate while dealing with downtrodden and uneducated persons. The laws except the penal are enacted to regulate the ordinarily development of the society. The building Bye laws in particular are enacted to regulate planned development of the areas. This court has been compelled to make these remarks because after having examined the case file, the officials who dealt with the case of the petitioner failed to keep in mind what is expected from the official holding public offices and other similar posts. The public servants are engaged for the service of the public and not to rule over them.
3. The petitioner is in possession of a small building. He has constructed shops in front and is residing in the rear portion. The building is located in Tauru, District Mewat, one of the backward district in the State of Haryana. Tauru is a sub division. Haryana Wakf Board is owner of the land underneath the building. Way back in 1967-1968, there was litigation between the petitioner’s father and the Punjab Wakf Board( predecessor of Haryana Wakf Board) which resulted into a settlement and his father agreed to pay Rs.5/- per month as the lease amount. It is his case that since level of the road, passing in front of the building, has been increased/elevated, therefore, rainy/dirty water started flowing in the premises. On account thereof, the building also developed certain cracks. He submitted an application on 05.09.2017 to Municipal Committee, Tauru, for permission to reconstruct the shop and the house. It was stated that the officials of the Municipal Committee, Tauru have already inspected the building. However, no response was received. He, thereafter, on 21.11.2017, once again requested the Municipal Committee to grant him permission to reconstruct the building. However, still no action was taken. It appears that in the meantime, he started reconstruction. The Municipal Committee, Tauru sent a notice on 27.03.2018 under Section 208 of the HARYANA MUNICIPAL ACT , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act of 1973’) directing him to stop the construction and demolish whatever construction has already been carried out. He, when served with a notice gave a note in Hindi language, on the notice itself that he has already applied for permission to construct vide applications dated 05.09.2017 and 21.11.2017. However, the Municpal Committtee still did not take steps to process the application for sanction of the building plan. Thereafter, vide communicated dated 30.03.2018 he once again requested the officials of the Municipal Committee, Tauru, that rainy as well dirty water of the locality flows in his house and therefore, he is compelled to increase the level of his constructed area. He undertook that he shall abide by the government rules. Along with the application, the photographs of the dirty water stagnating in his premises were also sent. The Secretary, Municipal Committee, Tauru, rather than being sympathetic towards his situat
