Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/45/2020

Ajay Kumar Batta Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Khunger, Nitika Jaura & Ramneek Kaur Sandhu Adv.

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint No.	:	45 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	19.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	19.12.2022

 

 

 

Ajay Kumar Batta, Advocate, resident of House No.34/43, Outside Bansi Gate, Ferozepur City, District Ferozepur.

…..Complainant

Versus

1. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

Email - info@chbonline.in

2. Ravi Kant Parbagga, Deputy Enforcement Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Email - info@chbonline.in
3. Vijay Kumar, J.E. Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

Email info@chbonline.in

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER. MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:--      Sh.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate for  the opposite parties.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

It is the case of the complainant that with a view to have a residence in Chandigarh for his son, a Dwelling Unit bearing no.5548, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh was purchased by him from Mr. Pawan Trehan. Following facts have been narrated by the complainant in his complaint:-

1. that vide memo dated 10.05.2011, Annexure C-1, the said Dwelling Unit was converted from leasehold into freehold and the opposite parties ordered to transfer  the same in the name of the complainant.
2. that Conveyance Deed in  respect of the unit in question was executed in the name of the complainant and was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Chandigarh on 06.09.2011, Annexure C-2.
3. that thereafter with a view to regularize the need based changes made by the owners of dwelling units, opposite party no.1 issued order No.59 dated 15.02.2019, Annexure C-3, subject to payment and conditions mentioned therein.
4. that because some need based changes were made by the complainant in the abovementioned dwelling unit, as such, he submitted an application before the opposite parties for regularizing the changes made in the rear courtyard and also some need based changes on the first floor over the kitchen of the portion in the rear courtyard;
5. that on the direction of the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.24,791/- was deposited, vide receipt no.27/43, Annexure C-4.
6. that the abovementioned charges of Rs.24,791/- was got deposited from the complainant for regularizing the need based changes made on the first floor and no charges were got deposited for the need based changes made on the ground floor on the ground that as the new policy has come and there is no clarity about the charges, which are to be got deposited for the ground floor and the complainant was assured that the complainant shall be intimated subsequently for the same.
7. that thereafter the opposite parties, vide letter dated 01.07.2019, Annexure C-5 intimated the complainant regarding some discrepancies/shortcomings in the application submitted by him i.e. the requisite fee for downloading/obtaining the standard design of CHB @ Rs.200.00 + 18% GST per print; Sanction letter by the approved Architect not submitted; Consent of adjoining Neighbors not submitted; Compounding fee for construction at GF @Rs.200.00 per Sqft + 18% GST subject to minimum of Rs.20000.00+ 18% GST.
8. that in the letter Annexure C-5, the complainant was asked to  go through order No.59 dated 15.02.2019 for more information/reference, which was available on official website of CHB.
9. that the requirements mentioned in the  letter dated 01.07.2019 was duly complied with and receipt dated 09.09.2019, Annexure C-6 was also issued by the opposite parties in that regard. Requisite amount of Rs.23,600/- was also deposited by the complainant, vide Book No.047, Receipt No.41, Annexure C-6.
10. that as the discrepancies/shortcomings so pointed out vide letter dated 01.07.2019 were duly complied with by the complainant, he was of the view that the need based changes so made by him will be regularized in due course.
11. that without taking a final decision on the matter pending for regularization of need based changes, vide letter dated 12.12.2019, Annexure C-7, a challan was issued mentioning therein that there are constructions/ alterations in the dwelling unit in contravention of the Chandigarh Building Rules (Urban), 2017 and the complainant was advised to stop the construction/alteration, whereas, on the other hand, no construction was going on at that stage because the need based changes/construction had already been raised and the documentation in this regard had already been submitted by the complainant with the Opposite Parties.
12. that in the meantime, the complainant also submitted another application on Form-A dated 20.12.2019 for regularization of addition construction under need based changes and along with the said application, the certificate of structural stability from the empanelled architect was also submitted (Annexure C-8).
13. that thereafter on 24.12.2019, Annexure C-9, a reply to the challan dated 12.12.2019 was also submitted and it was brought to the notice of the opposite parties that the need based changes so mentioned in the challan are not new and instead the same is old construction, which has been duly intimated to the opposite parties.
14. that the fact of old construction is also certified as the empanelled engineer of the Chandigarh Housing Board has submitted the Structural Stability Certificate only after personally visiting the dwelling unit and taking measurements of the construction so raised, therefore, the basis of challan that the new construction is being raised by the complainant was not existing.
15. that thereafter a notice-cum-demolition order under Section 15 of the Act dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-10, was served upon the complainant directing the complainant to immediately stop the construction and remove the violations.
16. that the order of notice-cum-demolition dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-10 was passed solely on the basis of the challan dated 12.12.2019, Annexure C-7 by overlooking the application dated 20.12.2019, Annexure C-8 submitted by the complainant for the regularization of the need based changes and the reply dated 24.12.2019, Annexure C-9 so submitted by the complainant.
17. that however, on the basis of letter dated 20.12.2019, Annexure C-8 the opposite parties vide letter dated 07.01.2020, Annexure C-11, regularized some part of the construction, which was raised in the rear courtyard i.e. the toilet and dressing at ground floor and also the removal of 4½" thick wall.
18. that in the meantime, the Opposite Parties also issued an order dated 19.07.2019, Annexure C-12, by substituting the earlier Order No.193 dated 15.07.2019 and according to the said order, the additional constructions in the dwelling units of Chandigarh Housing Board were granted temporary exemption from immediate demolition upto 31.12.2020 subject to the penal charges as mentioned in the said order.
19. that though the construction raised by the complainant was not new and the application for the regularization of the same was pending construction with the opposite parties, however, in order to save the said construction from immediate demolition, the complainant submitted an application Annexure C-13 for temporary exemption from immediate demolition upto 31.12.2020 and also deposited the requisite charges amounting to Rs.25,000/- @ Rs.135/- sq. ft. as mentioned in the notification of opposite party no.1 dated 19.07.2019. Along with the said application, a copy of the site plan for the ground floor and first floor was also attached and the need based changes/construction so raised was also specifically mentioned/highlighted.
20. that as the construction so raised by the complainant was on need based and was not new and was liable to be regularized, therefore, the complainant also submitted application 08.01.2020 Annexure C-14 for grant of temporary exemption for temporary exemption
21. that all of a sudden on 17.02.2020, when even the son of the complainant was away to Ferozepur and only the servant of the complainant was at home, opposite parties no.2 and 3 along with 5/6 labourers with demolition material/machines reached at the spot. After breaking the lock of the main gate and the sliding door of the drawing room, they entered the house. The labour was made to enter from the rear side by using the ladder and the glass of the kitchen window was also smashed. The servant Naubat Rai son of Shri Ram Parshad, who was present at the premises, informed opposite parties no.2 and 3 that as per the notification, the complainant has already deposited the charges and no demolition can be carried out till 31.12.2020, however, he was threatened by opposite parties no.2 and 3  that the complainant has failed to pay the amount as demanded and now he will see how much damage can be caused by them and directed the labour to start the demolition of roof over the kitchen at first floor, Pargola at the first floor and the rear balcony on the first floor.
22. that the action of the opposite parties in demolishing the portion of the dwelling unit is clearly against the notification/order dated 19.07.2019, wherein a temporary exemption from immediate demolition had been granted upto 31.12.2020 and the requisite charges so mentioned in the order dated 19.07.2019 have also been deposited by the complainant.

2.           Hence this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking following relief:-
   1. direct the Opposite Parties to pay the compensation amounting to Rs.15 Lacs, which has been caused by illegally demolishing the portion of the dwelling unit on first floor and also the damage to the whole building as the same has affected the total dwelling unit;
   2. grant compensation to the tune of Rs.5 Lac for inconvenience, mental harassment and damages suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties
   3. grant compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation, documentation charges, representation and numerous visits;
   4. grant any other relief to which the complainant may be entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case
3.           In the reply filed by opposite party no.1, it is submitted as under:-
   1.  that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint;
   2. that during ransom survey/inspection  conducted on 02.05.2019 by the enforcement staff of opposite party no.1 for any violation in dwelling units in the area,  it was found that following construction was  in progress:-
      • Additional WC constructed at the back courtyard
      • Balcony constructed in back courtyard on first floor
      • Room constructed at first floor above kitchen
   3. that the  complainant was advised to stop construction, immediately as the same was against the order No.59 dated 15.02.2019 passed by opposite party no.1 and also no sanction had been accorded for the same by the opposite party no.1.
   4. that though the complainant told the inspecting staff that charges for the same have been deposited, yet, on checking the record it was found that an amount of Rs.24,791/- had been deposited by the complainant on 03.04.2019 for 105.046 Sq.ft of area under construction i.e., room above the kitchen at the first floor purportedly with the application, but no other charges had been deposited, however, no permission having been granted for any construction was found on the record.
   5. that on examining the application made by the complainant, the SDE (PH) - III, CHD vide letter NO.415 dated 01.07.2019 demanded the need based charges for additional area covered on floor i.e., Store/WC. However, later on in response to the above letter sent by SDE, the complainant deposited charges for need based changes for the said need based changed vide receipt NO.47/41 dated 09.09.2019 for the toilet and drawing areas.
   6. that after the deposit of above charges, the application of the complainant was rejected and all the need based changes were denied on the ground that benefit of additional construction can be availed either under clause 5 or Clause 15 of the order no.59 dated 15.02.2019, Annexure R-3 but not simultaneously.
   7. that the complainant has assumed that the deposit of charges provide for an automatic approval of any amount of need based changes, which is not so and the need based changes done by the complainant were subject to Order NO.59 (R-3) and is clearly provided therein that the need based changes can be undertaken only under one clause ie., under Clause 5 or Clause 15. Thus, as the complainant had made need based changes under both clauses which is not allowed, thus, on the service of the Challan-cum-demolition notice, the unauthorized constructions which were not in consonance with the order No.59. As such, such unauthorized construction had to be demolished, which is as per the guidelines of the Chandigarh Housing Board.
   8. that the SDE (PH)-III, CHB vide letter No.415 dated 01.07.2019 had demanded Need Based Charges for additional area covered on ground floor i.e. Store / WC, which were not deposited by the complainant. It is only after the deposit of said charge any application for need based changes is scrutinized
   9. that the denial of need base changes were intimated to the complainant vide letter no. 907-08 dated 31.10.2019, yet, inspite of the non approval of the proposal of the complainant qua need base changes he still continued with the construction. Thus, Opposite party no.1 issued a challan No.07/0007 dated 12.12.2019 for the following fresh violations:-
      • Constructing room at first floor over the kitchen (Fresh)
      • Constructing toilet and dressing room in the back courtyard
      • Constructing balcony in the back courtyard
      •  Paragola / Verandah covered with ceiling
      • Door shifted at servant room at G.F. and merged in room
      • Servant toilet shifted to back side of room
      • Front balcony facia and railing removed

 

10. that, since even after issuance of the challan, neither the said illegal construction was stopped, nor the earlier violations were removed, so notice-cum-demolition order dated 31.12.2019 was issued, wherein it was mentioned that in case of demolition by the CHB either immediately or after three days, all the cost of demolition will be recovered from him. It was further intimated that he will solely be liable for all the damages, if accrued, to the adjoining structures and further consequences arising therefrom.

4.           It has been stated that since, the construction raised was fresh one, so the question of constructions as mentioned in the application for the approval of need based changes being old does not arise at all.  The complainant had appeared before CEO, CHB on 06.01.2020 and intimated that he had applied for regularization of additional constructions at Ground floor & 1st  floor and also requested to direct the concerned authorities not to take any action in respect of the challan and Notice-cum-demolition order. The CEO, CHB had ordered that "The complainant appeared before me and produced documents. Please ensure action for on Need Based Changes by Architect prior to any action about demolition". The Architect, CHB vide No. 15 dated 07.01.2020 issued approval to the complainant:-

• Clause-6 Removal of 4% thick walls as per the proposal
• Clause-15-Additional construction in rear courtyard (toilet and dress) at ground floor of area 89.43 Sq.ft.

 

5.           The complainant had not applied for regularization of additional constructions at 1st  floor, as claimed by him before the CEO, CHB (Annexure R/ 7). Thus, no approval was accorded by the authority for structures at 1st  floor, moreover, no approval could have been granted by the Opposite Parties as the two simultaneous benefits could not be allowed at the same time. It can either be construction on the First floor or on the Ground Floor, but not together. The penal charges as made applicable vide order dated 15.07.2019 can be deposited only for regularization of old constructions & not for proposed constructions on constructions still under taken in the DUs. Thus, the penalty charges deposited by the appellant do not have any impact for the immunity up to 31.12.2020. Merely moving an application for temporary exemption and depositing corresponding charges for the same does not give immunity from demolition forever. The immunity in order dated 15.07.2019 was only upto 31.12.2019 and not thereafter. It is submitted that the permission for additional need based changes was approved only for Sr. No.2 of Challan/D.O
   1. Constructing room at first floor over the kitchen (Fresh) (Not approved)
   2. Constructing toilet and dressing room in the back courtyard (approved under NBC)
   3. Constructing balcony in the back courtyard (Not approved)
   4. Paragola/Verandah covered with ceiling (Not approved)
   5. Door shifted at servant room at G.F. and merged in room (Not approved)
   6. Servant toilet shifted to back side of room (Not approved)
   7. Front balcony facia and railing removed (Not approved)
6.           Since, the office of the opposite parties had issued Challan vide No.07/0007 dated 12.12.2019 & Notice-Cum-Demolition order issued vide No.1199 dated 31.12.2019, the demolition drive was ordered to be conducted on dated 17.02.2020 by W/Secretary, CHB for removing fresh violations. On the day of drive i.e. 17.02.2020 the enforcement staff went to the said house. The small main gate at boundary wall was locked by the servant Sh. Naubat Rai. Since, the sliding door at boundary wall had no lock, the enforcement team entered the premises from this gate and then from the sliding door of Drawing Room along with Police Personnel deputed for maintenance of law and order during the drive. Therefore, on 17.02.2020 the following fresh violations were removed:-
   • Constrg Room at 1st  floor over the kitchen.
   • Constrg Balcony in the back courtyard.
   • Paragola/Verandah covered with ceiling.
   • Govt. land encroached with Toe wall & Iron post for barbed wire

 

7.           The demolition drive had to be abandoned due to continuous opposition from the allottee and his friends. All the activity of demolition drive starting right from entering the said DU to demolition was recorded through the official camcorder.  The demolition drive was conducted in compliance to the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by Ld. Secretary, CHB also in accordance with Standard Office Procedure (SOP) issued vide letter no. HB (S)/Admn. Officer/2019/1974 dated 23.07.2019.
8.           The complainant filed rejoinder wherein, he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained the written reply of  the opposite parties .
9.           This Commission has afforded adequate opportunities to the contesting parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, by way of filing affidavit. In pursuance thereof, the parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and also produced numerous documents including written arguments.
10.           We have heard the contesting parties and have also gone through the entire record of the case, including the rejoinder as well as written arguments aforesaid, very carefully.
11.           The case in hand is a bizarre example of the violations and breach of Rules of law by the opposite parties-Chandigarh Housing Board as well as DEO-Ravi Kant ParBagga, JE Vijay Kumar who had demolished room at the first floor, though the complainant has deposited the  requisite amount for regularization of need based changes made in his house. Admittedly, earlier, the complainant was in possession of the house in question on lease hold basis but the same was converted into free hold  vide order dated 10.05.2011. Conveyance deed was executed thereafter by the Chandigarh Administration on 06.09.2011, Annexure C-2 at Sr.No.3650 with Sub Registrar, Chandigarh. Thus, the complainant became exclusive owner of free hold house, under The Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease Hold Land Tenure into Free Hold Land Tenure Rules, 1996.
12.           The Chandigarh Administration issued letter no.144 dated  07.07.2015, Annexure C-29 as under:-

“……The Finance Secretary-cum-Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh vide memo no.33/3/1 UTFI(4)-2009/106 dated 07.01.2010 allowed certain need based changes for CHB dwelling units in light of the notification dated 16.10.2008 and discussion held with representatives of the Federation & officials Chandigarh Housing Board and Chief Architect, Department of Urban Planning, Chandigarh Administration Accordingly, the following need based changes/relaxations are allowed In CHB dwelling units subject to conditions as laid down specifically and approval of the building plans by CHB and to the payment of fine compounding charges as specified.

(A) ALLOWED FOR ALL CHB DWELLING UNITS (PLATS & INDEPENDENT HOUSES)

1.Allowed to construct RCC Chajja over doors and windows as per standard design available from CHB

2 Allowed to construct 915 MM wide projection/balcony on such fascias in front and rear where terraces exist by extending the end walls from the ground, covering the full width of the façade the prior approval of the CHB to maintain uniformity in the street picture. Except the Independent Dwelling Units, Phase-III, Manimajra where balcony of 1410 MM wide is already allowed at B(1)(iii) and HIG (L) (FF) in Sector 45-B, 38-A, 47-C and Sector 41-D where balcony in line existing balcony is already allowed on first floor as at S.No. D(2). No projection/balcony shall be allowed on the Govt. land.

3. (i)Allowed to construct a habitable room with toilet, or store or toilet with pucca road ground floor dwelling units in the rear courtyard to a maximum extent of 13.94 Sam(150) Sq.ft.) subject to fulfilling of light and ventilation norms and ground coverage not exceeding 70%. No additional construction shall be allowed above this room/store.

(ii)Also allowed to construct a habitable room or store with pucca roof on the existing terraces/sit outs of first floor and second floor dwelling units to a maximum extent  13.94 Sqm. (150 Sq.ft.) subject to fulfilling of light and ventilation norms. No additional construction shall be allowed above this room/store.

 (iii) In both the cases above, the maximum height permitted shall be the same as that of corresponding dwelling unit. To maintain the uniformity of the street picture, plans to be submitted to CHB for approval alongwith Structural Design and duly stamped certificate structural stability of a Registered Structural Engineer.

(iv) The minimum size of the window that should open into the courtyard shall be 762 mm and 1830 mm nigh with a cill level of 230 mm to 685 mm from floor level.

Temporary coverage in the form of sun shades over balconies of standard design and colour shall allowed with light weight material. The coverage shall be made by CHB after deposit of charges the allottees subject to the condition that the whole block shall provide it simultaneously for uniformity in the street picture.

5. Allowed to provide a sliding/openable steel grill in the verandas for safety reasons. The glazing or silding grills in verandas of size of a standard door opening and a window, which is not smaller- 1.22m X 1.22m (4'-0" x 4'-0") for proper light and ventilation shall be allowed.………….

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ALLOWED FOR INDEPNDENT HOUSES

1.       (1) a) Allowed additional coverage on the first floor terrace till the front building line only in the (Ind) dwelling units in Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra Phase-III.

          b) Also allowed the additional coverage in line with the building line of the terrace at the rear side of second floor.

          c) In both cases subject to the condition that light and ventilation to the corresponding room is not affected and structural stability of D.U is ensured.

          d) Plans to be submitted to CHB for approval along with structural design duly signed at certificate of structural stability by the structure engineer.

(ii) Allowed to shift the glazing from the existing position maximum up to in-line with the drawing room wall in HIG(Ind) dwelling units in Modern Housing Complex, Phase-III, Manimajra.

(iii) Allowed to construct 1410 mm wide projection/balcony in line with the existing porch by extending the end wall(s).

2. (1)Allowed to extend the terrace over the kitchen at first floor level upto the dining room wall in HIG(Ind) dwelling units in west of Sector-38.

Allowed to construct additional room on the terrace of the kitchen in the rear subject to the structural stability. No additional projection shall be permitted in this construction.

Allowed the coverage of pergola provided by CHB at first floor along with the glazing of the same.

3 (i) Allowed wall to wall coverage on the compulsory terraces provided at first & second wherever required in all other independent houses where construction has been done by for ground floor only and provision for terrace has been made at first and second floor subject to the norms of structure, Public Health & light and ventilation.

(ii)Plans to be submitted to CHB for approval along with the structural design duly stamped certificate of structural stability by a registered structural engineer……………”

 

13.           Thereafter, another letter  no.59 dated 15.02.2019, Annexure C-3 was issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board, relevant part whereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“………Finance Secretary-cum-Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh vide memo no. 33/3/115-UTFI(4)-2018/446 dated 08.01.2019 and memo no. 33/3/115- UTFI(4)-2019/2306 dated 11.02.2019, with the approval of HG-the, Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, allowed following need based changes for Chandigarh Housing Board dwelling units in relaxation of Chandigarh Building Rules (Urban), 2017:……….”

 

14.           It is coming out from the record that thereafter the complainant submitted application with the opposite parties in accordance with the letter Annexure C-3, for regularization of need based changes already made in his unit and deposited an amount of Rs.24,719/-, with the opposite parties, vide receipt dated 03.04.2019, Annexure C-4. Construction was raised in accordance with the letter Annexure C-29. However, the opposite parties raised following objections, vide letter dated 01.07.2019, Annexure C-5:-

“……Submission of P.Fee pay-in-slip in respect of Need Based Changes of Dwelling Unit No.5548, Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh.

 

Your application dated 03.04.2019 on the subject cited above.

 

In this regard, it is intimated that the following discrepancies/shortcoming has been found in your application:

 

1. The requisite fee for downloading/obtaining the standard design of CHB @Rs. 200.00+18% GST per print.

2. Sanction letter by the approved Architect not submitted by you.

3. Consent of adjoining Neighbors not submitted

4. Compounding fee for construction at GF @ Rs. 200.00 per Sqft.+18%

GST subject to minimum of Rs. 20000.00+18% GST.

5. You may go through order No. 59 dated 15.02.2019 for more information/reference. The same is available on official website of CHB.………..”

 

15.           It has not been disputed by the opposite parties that those objections were fulfilled by the complainant and the remaining amount was deposited by him, against which receipt dated 09.09.2019, Annexure C-6 was issued by the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties vide challan dated 12.12.2019, Annexure C-7 asked the complainant to stop the ongoing following fresh construction in the unit in question:-
    1. Constructing room at first floor over the kitchen (Fresh)
    2. Constructing toilet and dressing room in the back courtyard
    3. Constructing balcony in the back courtyard
    4.  Paragola / Verandah covered with ceiling
    5. Door shifted at servant room at G.F. and merged in room
    6. Servant toilet shifted to back side of room
    7. Front balcony facia and railing removed

 

16.            The said challan was challenged by the complainant vide application Annexure C-9 colly. wherein he clearly intimated the opposite parties that there was no fresh construction going on in the said unit and it was the old construction, for which application alongwith requisite fee, site plan and other necessary documents under need base changes stood submitted with them, vide diary no.9472/2019/1 dated 03.04.2019, copies of which were again provided to the opposite parties and that thereafter, even the objections raised by them were also removed by him. However, it is very strange that thereafter, the opposite parties issued notice dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-10 to the complainant intimating him to stop construction at his unit and remove the aforesaid violations within 3 days failing which the same shall be demolished and only removal of 4½ thick walls and additional construction in rear courtyard (toilet and dressing room) at ground floor of area 89.43 square feet was  approved by the opposite parties vide letter dated 07.01.2020, Annexure C-11 and the remaining construction done by the complainant as per need based changes was demolished by the opposite parties.
17.           It is significant to mention here that though in the challan dated 12.12.2019, Annexure C-7 it has been mentioned by the opposite parties that it is noticed that the construction is going on in the unit in question qua toilet and dressing room in the backyard; balcony in backyard and room at first floor over the kitchen, whereas, as per the own version of the opposite parties in para no.4 of their written reply, it has been mentioned that on inspection of the unit in question on 02.05.2019, it was found that additional W.C. was constructed at backcourt yard; balcony constructed in back court yard; and room constructed at first floor above kitchen. Thus, from the admission of the opposite parties themselves, it is proved that the challan dated 12.12.2019, Annexure C-9 which was issued after 7 months of the inspection aforesaid, wherein it was stated that the complainant is constructing room at first floor; toilet and dressing room in backcourt yard; and balcony in the back court yard, was based on falsehood. Under these circumstances, it can very well be said that it was not a new construction but the old construction, for which the complainant had applied for regularization thereof, in lieu of Order No.59 dated 15.02.2019, Annexure C-3 and letter no.144 dated  07.07.2015, Annexure C-29, wherein a provision was made to regularize certain need based changes  subject to payment and conditions mentioned therein. The opposite parties submitted that the amount was deposited in account but no permission was given. This argument is fallacious. Thus, in our considered opinion by demolishing the construction in the unit of the complainant, on the basis of  challan dated 12.12.2019, Annexure C-9, the opposite parties indulged into unfair trade practice.
18.           Not only as above, it has also been noticed by this Commission that there is nothing on record to prove that Standard Office Procedure (SOP), Annexure R-18, was followed by the opposite parties. No proper notice-cum-demolition order, as required under the said SOP, for any violation was given through Competent Authority (Secretary, CHB) because the contents of notice dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-10 were contrary to what was noticed by the opposite parties during survey/inspection  conducted on 02.05.2019. No permission to enter the premises of the complainant was obtained by the competent authorities. There is nothing on record that notice in this regard was uploaded on the website of Chandigarh Administration Board by the computer incharge. No police permission was taken. Thus, in our considered opinion, the action on the part of the officials of the Chandigarh Housing Board cannot be said to be bonafide, especially, the manner, in which they entered into the building in question, from the rear side by using the ladder. Such act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, which entitles the complainant to be compensated suitably.
19.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.5 lacs (Five lacs) towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant, deficiency in rendering service, negligence & adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
20.           Miscellaneous application bearing No.183 of 2020, for  stay of demolition, stands disposed of, accordingly.
21.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced

19.12.2022

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Rg.

 

 

S