Ground Floor Residents In Duplex Flats Welfare Association v. Chief Administrator Ut & ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:21.04.2022 Ground Floor Residents in Duplex Flats Welfare Association ...... Petitioner
Versus
Chief Administrator U.T. and others ......... Respondents *****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA *****
! "
# $
%
&
'
***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) CM-10315 of 2018 (
% )
*'+ ,! - .
/ 0 $
-2- %
% )
) % .1
)
3" 34 "3+# ,.
*50
) 6. 6*!!
$
,
.
8 %
) +943
% % 0 &
": 3; "3+4
)
< * *
%
.
8
% )
)
2 )
%
:
"49 <
% %%
$
(
= $ > % $
%
.
?*:8+ ,
%
0
2 ) $
) . <
$
-3- %
)
+3#+:
"3+4
%
< %
%%
8@ - A :;;8+
'+*
% 34 3; "3+9
+:
,- % ?
0 +9:"
% "
)
) %
% %
)
)
%
%
%
%
.
(
% = $ > % $
) %
%
8 !
'+*
&
C
<
)
%
-4- %% )
+ C
% %
)
) +; 3: "3+;
* D@ 3' 3: "3+5
%% *
)
%
.
%
) % )
!
)
% )
%
%
.
% %
6
E
% %
6
6
%
)
)
& )
%
)
% )
%
) %
!
)
.
%
%
% .
"9 34 "3+; F
-5He next points to the concluding part of the order dated 28.09.2017, which reads as follows:- "It is clarified yet again that the pendency of this writ petition will not be a ground for the official respondents not taking action against any illegal construction in accordance with law. In fact, in such cases the official respondents ought to take appropriate action. Adjourned to 02.11.2017."
On July 11, 2018 the following order was passed:- D!
)
% %
$G % % %
%
%
%
%
8 %
< .
$
35 39 "3+4 F
2.
On 06.09.2018 it was recorded that a committee was constituted by the Chandigarh Housing Board to consider the directions issued by this court as well as the need based changes within the prescribed parameters, with certain recommendations made in the meeting held on 23.08.2018, but with the final decision to be yet taken for its implementation (at that stage). On 27.09.2019 thereafter, the following order was passed:- D<
)
-6-
) . 3' 3: "3+9 ) )
$ %
) %%
)
< )
% %
H
) )
%
)
"4 ++ "3+9
? & "
# I
.
>
!
%
.%
)
F
Thereafter the relevant part of the order dated 28.11.2019 is also reproduced hereinbelow:- D@
%
%
) *
$
%
%
$
) 2
)
) *
%%
%
% %%
%%
%
-7- ) $
% %
) *
%%
)
*
) % $
)
$ % ) %
! %
%%
) ) %
!
)
) % )
) %
%%
+" 3" "3"3
?*
. F 3.
Pursuant thereto, a status report dated 25.11.2019 was filed by the respondent Housing Board, after which another status report dated 11.02.2020 was filed, annexing therewith a report of the committee constituted by the Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board (pursuant to the order passed by this court on 28.11.2019), with the relevant part of the detailed report stating as follows:- "The Committee is of the view that the following dwelling units should be declared as unsafe for residential purposes. (i) Those ground floor units where blatant violations have been made by way of removing essential load bearing walls thereby affecting the Structural Stability of the dwelling unit. (ii) Those first floor dwelling units where additional storey at third floor level have been raised as the existing foundations have not been
-8designed to withstand the load of additional storey. (iii) Those first floor dwelling units where construction over the cantilever portion at 1st/2nd floor have been made/where construction has been made at 2nd floor level, fully covered, thus loading the 9"x9" column which has been designed for original loading and is not able to take any additional load.
(iv) Those first floor dwelling units where construction in back terrace without raising load bearing wall from ground floor level have been made."
Immediately thereafter it is stated that (as regards the survey conducted), 6 ground floor units were found to be having blatant violations by way of removing essential load bearing walls thereby affecting the structural stability of the dwelling unit.
76 first floor dwelling units were stated to have made an additional 3rd floor level but with the existing foundation not having been designed to withstand a load of an additional storey.
174 dwelling units on the first floor were found to have made constructions over the cantilevered portion at the 1st/2nd floor, with construction made at the 2nd floor being fully covered, thus "loading the 9"x9" column which has been designed for original loading and is not able to take any additional load". One dwelling unit (Flat no.648/1) was found to have raised a construction on the rear terrace without raising a load bearing wall from the ground floor level.
Thus, a total number of 194 units, out of the total number of 628 units
-9- (i.e. 31% thereof), were found to be in violation as per the said report. 4.
Having considered the matter, it is to be observed that though in the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by this court, it was observed that such structures were liable to be demolished after following the prescribed procedure, alternatively the occupants of the dwelling units were also given the option to raise authorised construction as per the drawings approved by the Housing Board, especially where the ground floor occupants were willing to consent to such construction.
However, it is seen that as regards the last observation in that order, obviously it was without benefit of the report submitted thereafter in the year 2019 (as has been referred to hereinabove), with the said report having been made by a Committee ordered to be constituted upon directions of this court. 5.
Consequently, we consider it appropriate that the respondents take immediate action to remove all completely unauthorized structures made on the 3rd floor of the aforesaid units, as it has been specified by the Committee consisting of technical people including Executive Engineers and a Superintending Engineer, that the said floor is wholly unauthorized and that the foundations of the dwelling units do not cater to such load.
It is also to be observed that the dwelling units are stated to be actually two dwelling units, i.e. one on the ground floor and one consisting of a duplex of the 1st and the 2nd floor. Thus any 3rd floor could only have been constructed either by the persons living on the 2nd floor or on his/her express consent, which is completely illegal.
-10Learned counsel appearing for the newly added respondents submits that the occupants of that floor are not party to this petition. In view of the fact that this litigation has been pending for the past about 8 years now and surveys have been conducted at different points of time by the respondent Housing Board, it is not possible to believe that they are not aware of this litigation and in any case if no such 3 rd floor has ever been sanctioned by the competent authority obviously such construction is liable to be removed immediately, with it endangering the structure of the whole unit. 6.
As regards alterations made by those living on the ground floor and the 2nd floor (the 1st and 2nd floor actually having been allotted as a single duplex unit), the respondent Housing Board would take immediate action within a period of one month from today of restoring the structural aspects of the dwelling units, i.e. any pillars, load bearing walls, foundations and cantilevers etc. as have been found to be removed would be constructed. It would also be ensured that proper structural safety is provided to all the units, at the cost of the allottees of such units on a pro rata basis, i.e. as per the extent of the violation made and the construction to be now made in lieu thereof by the respondent Housing Board, with costs to be assessed as per the scheduled rates specified by the competent authority. 7.
After the complete structural safety of all dwelling units has been certified by the competent authority amongst the respondents, such report be put up to a committee consisting of technical persons and headed by the Chairman of the Housing Board.
Thereafter, as to which additions etc. made by all residents of the area
-11are those which fall within the permissible norms of the existing bye-laws would be considered on an individual basis by the respondent Housing Board, and where such alterations etc. are found to be permissible, a detailed speaking order in that regard would be passed, with the persons who have made such alterations to make statutory payments as may be required for compounding such alterations (as are permitted by the bylaws).
8.
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the newly added respondents, submits that the construction should start from the ground floor. Needless to say that normally, as per even basic principles, it would start accordingly because the structure starts from the ground upwards and not from the top. However, it is clarified that if no violation on any particular ground floor is found, naturally that particular unit need not be disturbed at all and action as required, would then be taken on the higher floors as are found to have been altered. 9.
COCP-729 of 2018 also stands disposed of in the above terms, alongwith the writ petition (and any applications as have not been disposed of). It is also clarified that all previous orders passed in this petition stand modified by this order by which the petition has been finally disposed of, accordingly. (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE
!
"!#
$%&'( Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes