VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the application filed by the judgment-debtor for setting aside sale-deed dated 15.12.2003 executed in favour of the decree-holder.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on the ground that the order passed by the learned trial Court was contrary to the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16325 of 1997 on 3.11.1997, which reads as under :- "Our attention has been drawn from the news item appearing in Chandigarh Newsline dated 1.11.1997 entitled "Blatant Violation but no action so far." It shows that there is flagrant violation to the provisions of Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975, the Punjab Apartments and Property Regulation Act, 1952. Around the City of Chandigarh unauthorised construction is coming up. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to issue suo motu notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, Advocate General, Haryana and Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh for 18.11.1997 to show (i) why no action is being taken against the unauthorised construction and if so, why the progress is so tardy (2) Survey should be completed and report submitted immediately as to what is the existing unauthorised construction within the periphery as contemplated under the provisions of Punjab Periphery Control Act, 1952. It appears that by getting sale of small plots of land, later on construction is raised thereon. Till further orders, it is directed that there shall be no registration of any small piece of land less than 1000 sq. mtrs." However, CWP No. 1635 of 1997 was finally disposed of by this Court on February 7, 2003 by passing the following order :- "Having heard (i) the learned amicus curiae Shri L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate and Shri Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate assisting the Court (ii) the learned Advocate General, Haryana (iii) the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and (iv) Shri Puneet Gupta, learned standing Counsel of Union Territory, Chandigarh and perused the bulky record we are of the view that no further monitoring is required to be done by the Court in relation to dis- obedience of the statutory provisions as we hereby direct the authorities to take steps under the statutory provisions for removal of the unauthorised constructions and give liberty to the individuals to resist in accordance with law the action which may be taken by the authorities for demolition of their construction. With these directions and liberties, we dispose of this writ petition thanking Shri L.M. Suri and Shri Sanjiv Bansal for the assistance rendered by them to the Court. No costs. Let a copy of this order be handed over by the office to (i) Shri Surya Kant Sharma, learned Advocate General, Haryana, (ii) Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and (iii) Shri Puneet Gupta, learned Standing Counsel representing Union Territory, Chandigarh within one week from today for intimation to and follow up action by the appropriate authorities." The ad interim order, therefore, merged with the final order and there remains no restriction on the sale of plots of less than 1000 sq. mtrs. The petitioner had entered into agreement to sell which he failed to honour and accordingly decree for specific performance was passed and sale-deed was executed by the Court in execution thereof. The contention of the petitioner that the said sale-deed was contrary to the orders passed by this Court is totally misconceived. The learned Courts below have rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner which does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.;