IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Jitender & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.11669 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-06-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. demolition orders based on encroachment notices (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. non-reasoned orders and their implications (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. rights to appeal against non-speaking orders (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. judicial requirement for reasoned decisions (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. re-hearing and proper decision-making mandated (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. quashing of orders and final resolutions (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
The challenge is to the demolition orders, dated 17.04.2023 (Annexures P-16 to P-20), which have been upheld in the appeal on 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-22). Apparently, show causes notices were issued under Section 408A (1) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, on 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-14) to the petitioners herein regarding the unauthorized encroachment of 'Khasra' No. 47, Village Dhana, within the limits of Municipal Corporation Manesar. The encroachment qua all the petitioners mentioned as under:-
| Petitioners Name | Petitioners Nos. | Encroachment land in square yards |
| Satender & Jitender | Petitioners No. 1 and 2 | 94.78 square yards |
| late Sh. Virbhan | Father of Anil Kumar petitioner No. 3 | 76.98 square yards |
| Karambir | Petitioner No. 4 | 188.56 square yards |
| Chanderbhan | Petitioner No. 5 | 266.22 square yards |
| Kuldeep | Petitioner No. 6 | 69.43 square yards |
2. Resultantly, the said persons were asked to appear on 03.04.2023 to show cause as to why they should not vacate the premises of building/land or building/structure constructed thereon or to restore the site to its original state. They were asked to call for the ownership documents and permission/approval granted by the competent authority .
3. Apparently, the matter was pending since long as the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP-467-2023, challenging the demolition orders dated 03.01.2023 (Annexures P-23 to P-32 in that petition). The following order was passed on 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-25), while recording the fact that non-presence of the petitioners or their authorized representatives at the time of demarcation, in such situation, will not be a ground for taking as if the demarcation was carried out in their absence. The said order reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the notices which have been issued to the petitioners or their authorized representatives would be withdrawn and fresh notices, if required, would be issued to them and others by the competent authority by following the proper procedure in accordance with law.
In the light of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, we dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the respondents to withdraw the impugned order/notices which have been issued to the petitioners or their authorized representatives, and as a consequence thereof, the demolition orders which have been impugned by the petitioners in this petition dated 03.01.2023 (Annexures P-23 to P-32) shall not be proceeded with.
It goes without saying that in case, the proper notices are issued and served upon the petitioners or their authorized representatives, petitioners would be bound to appear before the competent authority at the time of demarcation, if held. Non-presence of the petitioners or their authorized representatives at the time of demarcation, in such situation, will not be a around for takine it as if the demarcation was carried out in their absence.
Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that there is a contempt petition before this Court i.e. COCP-2491-2022 titled as 'Murari Lal Sharma v. Munesh Kumar and Anr.' which is now listed for hearing on 25.04.2023 Let this fact be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Contempt Court which shall thereafter pass an appropriate order.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. "
4. Apparently, the show cause notices were based on the demarcation report, dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-26), keeping in view the orders passe
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to grant a personal hearing to the affected persons during demarcation proceedings, as mandated by Rule 170 of the Delhi Land Re....
The duty of the municipal authority to ensure prompt demolition of unauthorized constructions and the precedence of the order of a higher court over that of a subordinate court.
The Superintendent Engineer validly issued a demolition order under delegated authority, despite challenges regarding notice and natural justice, affirming the necessity of judicial efficiency in mun....
Illegal construction on government land without ownership or permission does not entitle the petitioners to challenge the Corporation's action. The Corporation's offer of alternative accommodation ma....
The court emphasizes the obligation of the DDA to ensure procedural fairness to those affected by its actions, upholding the petitioners' objection regarding the lack of a fair hearing before the dem....
The executing Court has the power under Order XXI Rule 32(5) to order necessary demolitions to enforce a decree for permanent injunction despite such powers not being explicitly stated in the origina....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.