Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Substituted by Pujab Re-organisation (Chd.) (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1968 for "State Government". 34 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Chief Administrator shall be competent to demolish the said building at the ex- pense of the owner: Provided further that the Chief Administrator may, instead of requiring the alteration or demolition of any such building accept by way of compensation such sum as he may deem reasonable. COMMENTARY • Construction of 5th floor - Composite fee - Opportunity of 'leafing - Petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 7,05,556/- as composition fee for the construction of 5th floor of the Flat - The order was passed by the respon- dent -authorities at the back of the petitioner - The order suffers from illegality - Chandigarh Administration directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law - Dr. Vinod Kumar Sethi v. Union Territory, 1994 HRR 275 Demolition of building - Notice - The action of the Chandigarh Admin- istration in demolishing a portion of respondent's house was held to be illegal by a Division Bench of Punj ab and Haryana High Court as the notice to the re- spondent was issued after expiry of six months of construction in Chandigarh Administration v. Harinder Pannu, 1991 HRR 550 but this judgment was overruled in Bakshish Kaur Saini's case 1993 HRR 523 F.B. - It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that by mere lapse of time of six months, the unauthorised constructing does not stand to be legalise - There is no provision in the Act or Rules tendering to legalise any unauthorised construction by mere lapse of time - Even compounding of contravention was not permitted in the case. Equity - Respondent obtained allotment of plot in his favour concealing the fact of allotment of another plot in his name within the same Municipal Area -Violation of undertaking given to AllotmentAuthorities - Cancellation of second allotment justified - No equitable relief can be granted to respondent.- Bihar State Housing Board v. Satya Narayan Prasad (dead) by L. Rs., 1998 H.R.R. 153 S.C. Sanction of Plan - The appellant/landlords had got their building plans sanctioned according to Rule 25 of the Capital of Punjab Building Rules, 1952 • - In the meanwhile Rule 25 was amended - The appellants, without submitting fresh plans, extended the floor area of the building taking advantage of the amended rule - The height did not exceed the limits permitted by the amended rule - Non submission of plan is a breach of technical nature - Rate of compensation payable by the landlords was reduced from Rs. 45/- per Sq. feet to Rs. 20/- per Sq. feet only payable within six months - Raghubir Singh and Chattar Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1993 HRR 621. Violation of building Rules - Landlord's petition for eviction under the E.P. RentAct was dismissed - Building resumed by Govt. for violation of building Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 35 rules as landlord refused to remove the violation - High Court, in the interest of justice allowed the tenant to remove the violation to save his eviction by landlord - Ram Murti v. Chandigarh Adminisratin, 2002 H.R.R. 380 D.B. ****