Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 approached the Punjab Human Rights Commission on account of demolition of his house in village Kansal; Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar on the plea that the government itself had decided to regularize the houses constructed by 09.12.1998, but despite that on 23.06.1999 his house was demolished by the staff of the petitioner/Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (in short "PUDA"). He claimed undue harassment and loss as some household goods were also lying in the house when it was demolished in his absence and claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. The Commission took cognizance and to verity the stand of the parties appointed an Inquiry Officer. The report of the Inquiry Officer was then forwarded to the Chief Administrator, PUDA. An objection was sought to be taken by PUDA that the complainant/respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the property and, thus, various documents were called for. The aerial surveys were also produced by the petitioner to plead that on the disputed plot only a boundary wall and one small structure was in existence as on 27.03.1998.
(2.) THE Commission gave its findings that the complainant/respondent No. 1 was the owner who had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - to the Society through a cheque, but noticed the common case of the parties that on 27.03.1998 during the aerial survey only one room structure and boundary wall was in existence at the spot. The cut -off date for exemption of the houses from the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1993 being 31.03.1998, the Commission found that there was no escape, but to hold that the construction of the complainant stood exempted as it was in existence prior to the date as per the aerial survey and even apparent from the report of the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Commission which in turn was based on documentary evidence. It is in these circumstances that a sum of Rs. 35,000/ - was awarded as damages for demolition of the construction on the basis of bills submitted. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE factual position cannot be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, though he pleads that the action was taken in the larger interest of ensuring that there was no unauthorized construction; We, however, fail to appreciate as to how while checking the menace of unauthorized construction, the construction which is protected on account of the own acts of the petitioner could have been demolished. Even assuming that it was a mistake, respondent No. 1 should not suffer as a consequence thereof which may have occurred on account of the own acts of PUDA officers. The compensation is also not very large which could be said to be disproportionate to the damage done especially when it is based on the documentary evidence. We are, thus, not inclined to entertain this petition, though we are inclined to leave the larger question open as to the jurisdiction of the Punjab Human Rights Commission to go into this aspect. Dismissed in the aforesaid terms.;