CHANDIGARH: The UT chief administrator has set aside an order of estate office imposing misuse penalty on a Sector 22 resident for sanctionable violations. Terming the order of estate office non-justifiable, chief administrator K K Jindal remanded the order back to estate office with directions to pass appropriate order afresh as per rules after giving due opportunity of a hearing to the appellant. The SDM (central), while discharging duties of estate officer, had imposed a penalty of Rs 10 lakh under Chandigarh Estate Rules 2007 on account of violations in a house in Sector 22. As per laid down rules under the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Act 1952, when a building plan has been sanctioned and the owner makes changes during the course of construction, in such cases, compounding fee at rate of Rs 5 per square feet is charged. No separate penalty can be imposed for the same cause as it amounts to double jeopardy.During an inspection carried out at the underconstruction house of Raghbir Singh, it was found that the owner had raised unauthorised construction in the building plan against the sanctioned plan, which included change in planning of building, unauthorised rooms and toilets constructed in rear courtyard, unauthorised balconies, height of building raised against sanctioned plan, front and rear elevation charges and gate constructed on government land. Based on the inspection report, a show cause notice was issue on December 21, 2012, asking the owner to remove the violations. Acting on the notice, the owner submitted revised building plan on March 22, 2013, which was sanctioned on May 9, 2015. The SDM directed SDO (building) to calculate the penalty charges for building violations vide order issued on October 9, 2015. The SDM directed the owner on June 10, 2016 to deposit penalty charges. The owner moved an appeal before the chief administrator. S K Jain and Vikas Jain, counsels for the appellant, pleaded that SDO (building) calculated the penalty charges "illegally" and "arbitrarily" and without giving the owner opportunity of being heard. The counsels contended that after receiving notice, the owner removed the violations and informed estate office on March 19, 2013. The appellant on March 22, 2013, submitted revised building plan which was sanctioned on May 23, 2013 after paying compounding fee of Rs 36,744 for regularising the minor changes. The counsels pleaded that when the violations are sanctionable and covered under revised building plan, how the estate office can impose heavy penalty without even hearing the appellant. After hearing the case and going through the record, UT chief administrator passed the order stating: "It is evident that the appellant did his best to comply with the directions of the estate office. After issuance of show cause notice, the appellant himself set right the major violations and informed the estate office. Therefore, the act of estate office by imposing penalty charges upon the appellant on account of violations is not justifiable."

Stay updated with all the Chandigarh Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.