Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 901 (HP)

Vimal Sharma v. State of H. P.

2019-07-09

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. In this appeal, judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2697 of 2011 is under challenge. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts of the case and also case law, while allowing the writ petition has concluded as under:- "38. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to take action against respondents No. 5 and 6 under sections 38, 39, 39-A and 39-B of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. Respondent No.3 is also directed to take action against respondents No.5 and 6 as per section 211 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994. The action taken under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994 shall be as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited hereinabove. Respondent No.4 is directed to ensure that till the action is taken and proceedings are concluded against respondents No.5 and 6, no further construction is raised by them. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from today and file a compliance report after three months. It is further directed that the expenditure incurred towards Local Commissioner's report shall be borne by the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 proportionately. Respondents No.5 and 6 shall deposit the same with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs." 2. The appellants (respondents No. 5 and 6 in the writ petition) are not averse to the spot inspection to be conducted by the authorities in the Town and Country Planning Department as well as Municipal Council, Kullu. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocate on instructions from Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate has stated at Bar that the authorities to conduct the demarcation and point out the discrepancies/deviations/illegalities, if any, committed by the appellants-respondents at the time of development of their plot and raising construction thereon, after taking into consideration under the amended provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act and also the Municipal Council Act, 1994. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate has stated at Bar that the authorities to conduct the demarcation and point out the discrepancies/deviations/illegalities, if any, committed by the appellants-respondents at the time of development of their plot and raising construction thereon, after taking into consideration under the amended provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act and also the Municipal Council Act, 1994. In case any deviation under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act as well as Municipal Act/building bye-laws is detected during the course of inspection, the appellants-respondents shall demolish the same and protect the remaining part of the property in question i.e. again as per the requirement under the Municipal Act and also the Town and Country Planning Act within three months from the date of inspection and the deviation, if any, detected, failing which, the Town and Country Planning Department as well as Municipal Council will demolish the same at their cost. The report in compliance be filed on or before 15th October, 2019 on which day this matter shall be taken up in the Chambers at 4.15 p.m. 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.