Ranjit Singh And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS



 

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


 

Date of Decision:27.05.2022 Ranjit Singh and others ...... Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others ......... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA *****
 





 

  

    

         


 

   

  

  



    !"#$ 

         

 

 

   

" %

 

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) Vide this petition, the petitioners challenge the notice dated 14.05.2022 (copy Annexure P-10), by which the respondents have "informed" that unauthorised construction/kabaries/Jhuggies etc. raised over agricultural land in the periphery area of village Maloya, being in violation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, (as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh), should be DINESH 2022.05.31 13:12 I attest to the accuracy of this document



 

-2removed immediately, failing which the Administration would remove it within one week thereafter.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, other than raising an objection on the applicability of the Periphery Act itself, has also submitted that the notice is not even in terms of Section 12(2) of the aforesaid Act. Even prior to notice of motion having been issued, on an advance copy of the petition received by him, learned counsel appearing for the U.T. Chandigarh very fairly submit that the aforesaid notice would be withdrawn and appropriate notices under the provisions of the aforesaid Act would be issued by the respondents.

That being so, this petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned notice is set aside, but with liberty to the respondents to issue notices as per law in terms of the aforesaid Act of 1952.

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE

 



  



Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH 2022.05.31 13:12 I attest to the accuracy of this document