M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 3.7.2007 (P-7) passed by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chandigarh-respondent No. 1. A further prayer for quashing order dated 29.12.2005 (P-5) passed by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), Mohali [now Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)] and order dated 13.11.1992 (P-2) passed by the Estate Officer of the erstwhile Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh (PHDB) canceling the allotment of House No. HE-207- A, Phase IX, Mohali, has been made. Still further it has been prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to restore and regularise the allotment of aforementioned house in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to lower strata of the society. She was allotted E.W.S. Group House No. HE-207-A, Sector 63-D in Phase IX, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 23.5.1977 (P-1) by the PHDB at a tentative price of Rs. 8,000/-. She paid Rs. 500/- at the time of making the application and rest of the amount was payable through monthly instalments over a period of 18 years. The case of the petitioner is that the entire price of the house in question has been paid. On the basis of her own belief that the construction of additional room was permissible with the prior permission, she added one room and stairs in her house albeit without permission. However, the Estate Officer, PHDB, passed an order dated 13.11.1992 cancelling her allotment (P-2) on the allegation that she had raised unauthorised construction in the house like room and stairs. Thereafter notice under Section 46(1) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Act') was served on the petitioner on 16.5.2003 informing her that since allotment of the house stood cancelled, she was to appear before the Estate Officer, PUDA, on 1.7.2003 to show cause why she should not be evicted from the house in question. The petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer and sought time for filing appeal against the cancellation order dated 13.11.1992. Accordingly, she filed an appeal under Section 45(5) of the Act on 4.7.2003 before the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali. The appeal has been dismissed on 29.12.2005 (P-5). The Appellate Authority noticed the report of the Field Staff of the Estate Office, which was to the effect that the allottee had raised unauthorised construction of kitchen in the courtyard, veranda, stairs and store on the roof of the kitchen. She was given a number of opportunities to put an end to the unauthorised construction but all in vain and, therefore, the appeal for restoration of the allotment of the house has been dismissed and the steps for the eviction of the petitioner were being taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 45(8) of the Act (P-6). The revision petition has also been dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2007 (P-7). Respondent No. 1, who is the revisional authority has noticed the fact that the petitioner has now removed the unauthorised construction but still went on to dismiss the revision petition. Last two paras of the order make the approach of respondent explicit, which read as under :- "The case came up for hearing today. The learned counsel of petitioner submitted that there existed a policy of regularization of such unauthorized construction which was framed by the erstwhile Punjab Housing Development Board, however he could not produce a copy of the same. The Law Officer Greater Mohali Area Development Authority submitted that the unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner are not compoundable and there never existed any policy for regularization of such structures. He also submitted that the petitioner made a number of unauthorized construction like a room, kitchen, staircase etc. which are not compoundable. It has been submitted by the petitioner that now they have removed the above unauthorized constructions. I have gone through the file and heard both the parties. It is a matter of record that the violation of terms and conditions of allotment, the allotment was cancelled by the Estate Officer on 13.11.1992 after giving them opportunities for removal of unauthorized constructions. At no point of time, regularization of their unauthorized construction was under consideration. However, deliberately they did not comply with the orders of the Estate Officer as well as the Additional Chief Administrator rather they kept waiting for 14-15 years for removal of unauthorized construction. Their motive behind such delay was only to enjoy the benefits of unauthorized structures. Hence they deserve no sympathy, accordingly the revision petition is dismissed."
(3.) THEREAFTER the petitioner has been confronted with orders of eviction issued on 27.8.2007 (P-8) by invoking the provisions of Section 46(1) of the Act. When the matter came up for hearing on 4.10.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that unauthorised construction has been removed by the petitioner and the Division Bench passed an interim order staying her dispossession.;