Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, VIKRAM AGGARWAL, JJ.
Navpinder Pal Singh Sidhu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-1784 of 2023 (O &M)
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Addl. A.G., Punjab for all the respondents.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 - Petitioner challenged removal notice regarding fencing erected for protection against stray animals - No decision taken on the petitioner's reply to removal notice - Court directed the Estate Officer to make a decision within three weeks. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Administrative action - Where notices for action have been issued, authorities must respond appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe - Courts may intervene to ensure procedural fairness and prompt decisions. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns a plot in a developing colony and constructed fencing due to the absence of a boundary wall, facing potential removal of this fencing based on an Estate Officer's notice, prompting a delay in decision.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the petition and directed the Estate Officer to consider the petitioner's reply to the notice and to communicate their decision promptly.
Issues: The main issues were the lack of decision on the petitioner's reply and the implications of the notice for removal of fencing in the context of protecting the property from stray animals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of timely administrative responses to notices issued to citizens, ensuring due process and the protection of individual properties.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court orders maintenance of status quo until decision. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner asserts ownership and encroachment issue. (Para 3) |
| 3. state's reference to prior court order on encroachments. (Para 4) |
| 4. no decision taken on the petitioner's reply. (Para 5) |
| 5. direction to consider petitioner's reply and pass an order. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral)
CM-1816-CWP-2023
Photographs appended along with the present application are taken on record as Annexure P-7, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CWP-1784-2023
3. Petitioner asserts that he is the owner of House/plot No.175-C, Green Field Enclave, Malout, measuring 250 square yards. The said plot is in a new colony, where the Bathinda Urban Development Authority was supposed to provide for the boundary-wall and the necessary infrastructure including gates. Because of non-construction of boundary-wall as also the gates, there is menace of stray dogs and wild cattle. To vain that out, petitioner has erected fencing around the house with an intention to save his property. Now the petitioner has received a notice from the Estate Officer, PUDA, Bathinda, dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) for removal of the alleged illegal encroachment at the berm of road. Reply to the said notice was duly given by the petitioner, copy of which is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-6, but no decision has been taken thereon. Counsel contends that there is a threat of removal of those fencing, which have been erected by the petitioner, which would expose the house of the petitioner to unruly elements including wild cattle and stray dogs.
4. Learned counsel for the State has brought to the notice of the Court an order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3009 of 2022, titled as 'Ravinder Singh Romana and another v. State of Punjab and others', wherein, on a petition having been filed, where assertions were made with regard to large scale of encroachment to public place/property by various owners of residential and commercial properties in the different phases of Urban Estate, Bathinda, directions have been issued to initiate appropriate action as per mandate of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 as also the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. It is, in pursuance thereto, now a contempt petition has been preferred i.e. COCP No.49 of 2023, titled as 'Ravinder Singh Romana and another v. Rupinder Pal Singh and another', in which notice of motion has been issued for 26.04.2023. Counsel contends that the action which has been initiated, it appears, is in pursuance to the above referred to order passed in the said writ petition.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that upon issuance of notice dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) to the petitioner, reply has been submitted by him, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-6, but till date, no decision thereon has been taken.
6. In the light of the above, the present petition is disposed of, without commenting upon the merits of the case, with a direction to the Estate Officer, PUDA, Bathinda, to consider the reply (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the notice dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) and pass a speaking order thereon within a period of three weeks from today. The decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.
7. Till the decision is taken and conveyed to the petitioner, status quo as it exists today shall be maintained.
