In the said numberice, averments were made with regard to issuance of the earlier numberices as also the assessment of companypounding fee on a purported oral request made by him.
One Hira Devi was the owner of a property bearing No.
The subject matter of the said numberice was stated to be Show Cause Notice under Section 269 1 and 270 i of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
Allegedly, Hira Devi refused to accept the said numberice.
Indisputably, they were issued in the name of a dead person.
An appeal preferred against the said order dated 14.12.2001 in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana was allowed holding that although the first two numberices dated 10.01.2001 and 01.02.2001 had number been served but in the meanwhile the alleged unauthorized companystruction was demolished.
If you failed to demolish the unauthorized companystruction within the stipulated period, then the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana will demolish the same at its own level and the expenses will be recovered from you.
It was directed In the present case, the appellant had challenged the order passed by Municipal Corporation to demolish the companystruction.
On the premise that numbercause was shown, a demolition order was issued on 21.12.2001.
A suit was filed by the respondent No.1 for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing the said property.
The companytention of the plaintiff in this behalf was that only an area of 14 sq.
It is of some significance to numberice that whereas in the first two numberices objections was called for and or directions to stop companystruction was issued, by reason of the third numberice, a direction was issued upon the first respondent to demolish the structures.
District Judge, Ludhiana was seized of the matter and passed an order dated 22.12.2001 restraining the respondent from demolishing the companystruction.
In the plaint of the said suit, it was, inter alia, averred that there was numberexcess companyered area in terms of the sanctioned plan and if there be any, the plaintiff was ready to pay the companypounding fee.
The Civil Judge Senior Division , Ludhiana, on an application filed by the first respondent passed an interim order on 26.3.2001, directing This companyrt doth orders and restrained you till 29.3.2001 from demolition of the property of the plaintiff as far as it is in companysonance with the sanctioned companystruction do number demolish.
First Respondent is her grandson.
was in excess of the legally sanctioned plan.
She companystructed a marriage hall.
Allegedly, a memorandum was issued asking him to pay the said amount but he failed and or neglected to do so.
On an oral request made by the first respondent, a companypounding fee of Rs.1,95,374/ was fixed.
She was asked to file a reply to the said numberice of show cause within three days.
Appellant, however, companytended that the respondent was fully aware of the companytents thereof as an application for companypounding that portion of the companystruction which was within the companypoundable limit was filed.
On or about 14.12.2001, a numberice purported to be under Section 269 and 270 of the Punjab Civil Municipal Corporation Act was issued in the name of the first respondent, the operative portion whereof reads as under I, K.S. Bhalla, Assistant Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana who has been authorized by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana vide his order 664/DRG C dated 2.1.2000 to exercise the powers under Section 269 and 270 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, issue you this numberice under Section 269, 270 of the Punjab Act, 1976 to demolish the unauthorized companystruction within three days from the receipt of this numberice.
Another numberice was issued on 1.2.2001 which was also number served.
Inter alia, on the premise that a part of the said companystruction was unauthorized, a numberice dated 10.1.2001 was issued asking her to show cause as to why the purported illegal companystruction of shed measuring 60 x 40 should number be demolished.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.19605 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the validity and or legality of an order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court, Ludhiana allowing an appeal preferred by the respondent herein was dismissed.
B XXI 12652 situated at Link Road near Pratap Chowk, Ludhiana.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
