Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1683 (PNJ)

Simarjit Locham v. State of Punjab

2012-12-03

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure P-10), terming it as arbitrary, illegal and perverse. Vide this order, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, has cancelled the sanction of the plans forthwith and has held that the building erected at the site shall be deemed to have been erected without sanction. 2. The property in question over which this construction has been carried out is owned by Dera by the name ‘Mandir Talab Mongia Wala’. Shiv Ram Kumar Kapoor was its Mohitmim, who had decided to lease this property to Duni Chand. The lease agreement was executed on 28.1.1994 and 28.4.1994. Duni Chand transferred his rights in favour of Sh.Parsan Ram Locham (since deceased). Sh.Parsan Ram Locham approached Municipal Corporation, Patiala, for sanction of the plan in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (for short, “the Act”) and the byelaws. Sh.Parsan Ram Locham, however, expired and his rights were succeeded by his legal heirs on the basis of a will. His son, Rupinder Kumar Locham, thus, succeeded him. 3. The Municipal Committee, in the meantime, issued a public notice on 24.11.1998, saying that all the persons who had constructed their buildings without getting necessary approval, could get the plan sanctioned within a period of 15 days from the date of notification. The petitioner submitted clarification and after satisfying that the land did not fall in the control of the Government, sanctioned the plan submitted by the petitioner. On this basis, Sh.Parsan Ram Locham had raised first and second floor, whereafter he submitted a revised plan for according sanction. The petitioner claims that the said revised plan was also sanctioned. It is stated that the building was even assessed to house tax. Still, Sh.Parsan Ram Locham was issued notice under Section 264 of the Act, alleging that the building plan was got sanctioned by misrepresenting the facts. The sanction was, thus, sought to be revoked. 4. Sh.Parsan Ram Locham filed reply-cum-objections to the said notice. It is alleged that without examining the record, the impugned order dated 16.5.2011 was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who has dismissed the same, being not maintainable. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present petition. 5. The grounds on which the sanction has been revoked are contained in the impugned order. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who has dismissed the same, being not maintainable. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present petition. 5. The grounds on which the sanction has been revoked are contained in the impugned order. The matter was enquired into on the basis of the complaint received by the Deputy Commissioner that Mohatmim has leased out a very valuable land of the Mandir where a hotel has been constructed. The complainant prayed for removing the unauthorized possession from the land of the temple and sealing of the hotel, which was violating the holy place meant for temple. Enquiry was marked by the Deputy Commissioner and it was found that Mohatmim has no right to sell or mortgage or lease the land of temple and Sh.Parsan Ram Locham has got the plans of hotel Locham Inn sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation against the law. They both are not the owner of the land and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner recommended cancellation of the sanctioned plan. 6. Notice accordingly was issued to the petitioner and opportunity was given. Even opportunity of personal hearing was afforded. After considering the reply, it was found that Sh.Parsan Ram Locham had sought construction of a workshop with provision of a basement. ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not obtained from the neighbourers, as was required by the bye-laws. The permission was inadvertently issued in the name of general power of attorney i.e. Sh.Parsan Ram Locham, who submitted the plan himself for construction of first and second floors. He did not submit any proof of ownership. 7. The record only shows that the plans were sanctioned for construction of a workshop with provision of basement and subsequent construction of first and second floor was meant for office. However, at the site, the petitioner is running a hotel ‘Locham Inn’ by constructing rooms in violation of the plan. The Commissioner accordingly found that the plan was got sanctioned by misrepresentation of facts. He is, thus, fully justified in cancelling the sanction, which was granted on such misrepresentations. The petitioner, who is not the owner, could not have even applied for sanction of building plans and there appears to be something more at play in this regard in sanctioning of the plans. It does not appear to be an innocent act. He is, thus, fully justified in cancelling the sanction, which was granted on such misrepresentations. The petitioner, who is not the owner, could not have even applied for sanction of building plans and there appears to be something more at play in this regard in sanctioning of the plans. It does not appear to be an innocent act. The plans were sanctioned in favour of General Power of Attorney and not the owner, thus, ignoring the legal position. Even the construction, which is carried out, is not as per the sanctioned plan. There is valid and justifiable reasons to cancel the sanction, which was so granted and accordingly no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.