High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging demolition of shops and livelihood of petty traders in Chandigarh. Court observed petitioners lost but suggested Administration consider their claim sympathetically.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1993
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1993 Date of decision: 03.02.2011
Jaipal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The petitioners are such persons, who claim to be carrying on petty businesses like firewood stall, kabari shop, tea stall, Pan Bidi shop etc. at village Shahpur, U.T., Chandigarh. They also claim either to be the owner or lessee of the land. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were earlier the tenants of one Sh. Karnail Singh but had purchased their respective plots measuring about 10 Biswas each from the said Karnail Singh on 24.01.1986. Brijbushan Sharma, petitioner No. 3 is a tenant on the land owned by Sh. Gurdev Singh son of Bada Singh of village Shahpur. The petitioners are, accordingly, earning their livelihood by carrying on these petty businesses.
In the year 1987, the Land Acquisition Officer in exercise
Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1993
2
of powers of Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners to remove these unauthorised constructions under Section 12 (2) of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to 'Act'). Aggrieved against this notice, petitioners No. 1 to 3 alongwith some other persons filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5050 of 1987 before this Court. While issuing notice, this Court stayed dispossession and demolition till further orders. This writ petition was finally disposed of on 24.11.1988.
What all is recorded in the order annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2 is that no final order under Section 12 (2) of the Act had been passed by the authority. Counsel appearing for the U.T. had then stated before the Court that action as required under Section 12(2) of the Act would be taken after following due procedure. The counsel also did not express any objection for the petitioners to furnish their representation in writing within fortnight for consideration and for passing the final order. With the above observation, the writ petition was disposed of. There is no mention made in the order that there was any undertaking on behalf of the respondents that no further action will be taken till applications for allotment of alternative site are considered as has been stated in the petition.
The petitioners, however, has made a representation on 07.12.1988 for allotment of alternative site. It is stated that the delegation of petitioners led by petitioner No. 1 had met with respondents No. 1 and 3. No action thereafter was taken by the respondents. No alternative site was also allotted. As per the
Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1993
3
petitioners, suddenly on 01.02.1993, some officers of the U.T. Administration came to the site and started demolishing the structures of the petitioners without any prior notice. A large number of people gathered there and raised hue and cry. The petitioners showed the order passed by this Court and a representation dated 07.12.1988, which was filed by them. The persons from the U.T. Administration had left the scene telling the petitioners and others to obtain fresh orders from the Court as otherwise they will demolish the structures. The petitioners apparently then approached this Court pleading that they have right to livelihood, which was being violated and in turn leading to violation of their right to life by the action of the respondents. This Court again issued notice and stayed the demolition of the structures. The writ petition was admitted and has now come up for hearing.
Reply of the Union Territory has been filed. The fact that petitioners No. 1 and 2 had purchased land from Karnail Singh is admitted. It is also admitted that petitioner No. 3 is a tenant of Gurdev Singh. Reference is also made in the reply about the land which was acquired by the Karnail Singh and Gurdev Singh i.e. 4 bigas and 19 biswas in khasra number 4, 5 and 6. It is stated that petitioners no. 1 to 3 had carried out construction/activities in violation of the Act. They were, accordingly, issued notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 18.05.1987. It is also stated that the petitioners were afforded opportunity of hearing and authorities then had ordered that unauthorised construction raised on agricultural land be demolished. Copies of these orders have been placed on
Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1993
4
record as Annexures R-4, R-5 and R-6. That was the time, the petitioners had challenged the same by filing CWP No. 5050 of 1987, reference to which has already been made. It is conceded that the petitioners had made representations dated 07.12.1988 where they had claimed allotment of alternative sites for running the business.
To justify another action of demolishing, it is stated that the file was untraced in the office and when the petitioners showed the order passed by this Court, the further action was not pursued. The petitioners were apprised to get a fresh order. The petitioners were, thereafter, heard after tracing of the file and their representations were rejected on the ground that they were in occupation of acquired land. So far as the case of petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he was found to be private tenant holding land falling in the periphery of which he had changed the nature thereof. It is, accordingly, stated that the petitioners have no cause to plead.
I have heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were earning their livelihood by running shops. The counsel, however, has not urged or shown if these constructions were authorised or not. The petitioners had represented for allotment of some alternative site that has been rejected as can be seen from the reply. The petitioners, thus, seem to have lost and are fighting a loosing battle. Still there would be no harm in case the U.T., Administration consider the claim of said lowly placed persons for adjusting them. Concededly the U.T. has formulated some such schemes. The petitioners may deserve sympathy as ultimately effect is going to be on their right of livelihood
Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 of 1993
5
and life. By so observing, I have no intentions to create any right in the favour of the petitioners. These are mere observations for consideration of administration and it is hoped that the case of the petitioners would invite sympathetic consideration. Otherwise, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
February 03, 2011 rts
(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil writ petition entitled to interim relief and consideration for livelihood can be dismissed.
Whether the Union Territory Administration could demolish structures of petty traders without prior notice.
Whether claim for alternative site had been substantiated by petitioners.
Jaipal and others
Chandigarh Administration
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
