(a) These Rules shall be called tho Punjab Capital (Development and Regul at ion) Building Rules, 19Y1.
(b) These shall come into force at once.
' ( c) These shall extend to the whole of Chandigarh except the are a of the revenue estate ofthe villages Manimajra, Burail, Attavro,Badheri, Butcrla, Malaya, Dadu Majra, Palsora, Kaj herl and Halla MaJra (includ ing the area under Abadi Deh therein).]
I. Publlsbed by punjab GO VI. Notification No. C·9594-3211C/598. dated 27.12.1952
2. Substituted by Cbandigarh Adm. Gaz, (Extm)dated 1611 7.11.2006atpage 1968 J. Added by Notificotion Pub lished in Chnndisorh Adm. Goz. (ExIra) doted 22·1 · 1993
4. Substituted by Punj ab Re-crgonisatlon (CM.) (A~.plution of Lllws) Order. 1968 [ J9] r , ' 46 Puniab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 Resumption of site - Petitioner raised unauthorised construction on the allotted site in violation of Building Rules- Estate Officer ordered resumption of sire forfeiture of 10% of price and o rdered to pay 6% interest and also a sum of Rs. 29928/- for use of'unautlrcrised construelion - Held. the order ofsaid payment is maintained and the total sum should be deposited with 12% interest per annum within 3 months - Interest to bo calculated from the date of order of appellate authority - (i) Petitioner should submit a revised building plan within 2 months and should apply forco!"poul\dil~gofviol.ntion as permitted under Rules (ii) He sho!"ld deposit compoundrng fcc With 12% mterest per annum from date of resurupuon
(iii) Violations not compoundable to he removed within 2 months (iv) Order of forfeiture of 10% of price to be remain undi sturhee!- rn case these directions nrc not complied with or~e~ of resumption.shall be revived - Smt. Balblr Kaur I< Union Territory Adnl/nls/I'a/or. Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 68 See also /lidya Sagar v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 59.
Review - Power of revi ew is not an inherent power but like the power of appeal it must be conferred by law or by necessary implication- Orders passed by C.C. Oil the review application of'allottee were rightly ignored by Estate Officer being non est - Oroc~p'nsscd by Estate Officer resuming the site for non-construction ofhotel on nllotted site does not suffer from any illegality - Maharani Deepinder Kaur Burdwan I~ Union Territory; Chandigarh, 1996 I-IRR 495 D.B.
Resumption - Unauthorised construction - Petitioner constructed a pucca slab on Barsati floor on the portion to be kept open to sky - Rear Court-yard covered unnuthorisedly with RCC slab - Violation is not so gross and flagrant as to call for extreme step of'rcsumptlon -Basic ground giving rise to orderofresump tio n removed - Violation of coverage of open courtyard with RCC slnb can be regulariscd by Administration i~steu~ of passing resumption order - Petition al lowed - Hal'; Kishan v. Union Territory; Chandlgarg, 2001 II.R.R. 364 D.B.
Unautnortsed partitlon of butldlngs - Lease otsite cancelled by adminis tration on the ground ofmaking unauthorised partition in building in breach ofRule S - Partitions of other building of petitioncr approved by authority - There is no basis for diITcrincial treatment about the building in question - Charge of discrim i nation stands established which violates Article 14 of Consthutlon - Petitioner cannot be ponnlised by imposi ng extreme step ofcancellation of lease- Order of cnncellatlon of lease upheld by appellate and rcvisional authority cannot be sus tained as it suffers from voice of discrimination - !>Us. Rajinder Kumar and Sons v. Union Territory of Chandigarg, 2000 H.R.R. 797 D.8.
Zoning Plan violation - Grievance of petitioners is that Chnndigarh Administration has illegall};' allowed raising ofmake shit structures for sale ofpro used books 10 front of therr houses - These structures are eye sores and are in complete violation of.Zoning plan ofthe area and h!'ve resulte~ in trnffic hllZllJ'd From perusal-of zonmg plans framed under Capital of Punjab (Dev. & Reg .)
Rules, 1952 that zoning plans differ from sector to sector - As per latest lind amended zoning plan ofSeetor 15. there is no violation ofany legal provision - Jt Ismeant for usc of"lllIldscapo, features, educational, public and community buildings and public amenities -Ilesctrlement ofbooksellers approved - Ashutosh Vermani v. Chandigarh Adminislralio/l, 2012(1) Haryana Law Reporter 193 0 .8.
runja~ ~llpital (D.'welopment and Regulation) Building Rules. 1952 49 Architect and Secretary, Department of Urban Planning, Chandigarh Adminis tration. The ~<!sig~ nevertheless shall be submitl.ed "lonB~irh" site plnn in tripli cate for identl ficatiou, T he owner shall also furnish a certificate that the construe lion of the said buildingshall be undertaken in accordance with the Standard Uov ernment Dc~ign/ArchilccturalControl under the supervision of" registered Ar -hitoct. The building design nf'the StandardArchitectural Controls/Standard Gov ~rnmcr.tDesign s ha ll not further be scrutinised by the Plan Advisory Committee.
(\ flor a£ccr1ain ing the identification of the documents and correctness orthe site plan une copy ofthc plan shall be returned 10 tho owner with the decision of the Chic'fAdministrator. Chandigarh.)