Dismissed

Suraj Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2014CWP/9520/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a notice to remove illegal construction on government land, mirroring directions issued in a related case (Azad Bharat Colony) wherein notices were quashed and a framework for alternative accommodation established.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of CWP No. 5875 of 1997; notices quashed and alternative accommodation framework applied.

Suraj Nath & Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 9520 of 1997

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 9520 of 1997 Date of decision: 07.03.2014

¶5

Suraj Nath and others

¶6

...Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: None for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice dated 03.07.1997 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent-authorities to remove illegal construction and vacate government land belonging to Irrigation Department near Gurgaon Canal Feeder.

¶15

The writ petition was ordered to be heard alongwith CWP No. 5875 of 1997, Ram Dass Mandal and others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others and the petitioners were not to be evicted vide the interim order dated 09.07.1997. CWP No. 5875 of 1997 was disposed of on 19.04.1999 by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases, in which the lead case was CWP No. 11637 of 1996, Azad Bharat Colony and another vs. State of Haryana and others, in which the following directions were issued by the Division Bench:-

¶16

“In the result, we allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned notices with the following

¶17

Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 9520 of 1997

¶19

¶20

directions:

¶21

(i) The respondents shall constitute a Committee preferably headed by the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. for providing alternative sites to those who have been living in jhuggi/jhopri colonies for the last 5 years or more. The period of 5 years has been chosen by us because it is an admitted fact that most of the petitioners have been living in jhuggi/jhopri colonies for 10 years or more except those who are petitioners in CWP No. 9184 and 9621 of 1997.

¶22

(ii) The committee shall, after getting conducted a survey of the colonies, determine the seniority based on the length of occupation of the residents of jhuggi/jhopri colonies in the respective urban estates.

¶23

(iii) The Committee may frame appropriate policy for allotment of available E.W.S. houses or plots to the petitioners and other residents of jhuggi/jhopri colonies in accordance with their seniority at the rates enumerated in the policy already framed by the H.U.D.A.

¶24

(iv) Those who cannot be accommodated by allotment of existing E.W.S. houses/ plots shall be offered alternative sites at a maximum distance of 7 to 10 kilometres from the present places of their colonies. (This distance has been indicated by us keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (supra) in the context of the right to livelihood.

¶25

(v) The plots to be offered to the residents of jhuggi/jhopri shall not be of more than two Marlas size.

¶26

(vi) Those who accept the offer of allotment of E.W.S. houses must vacate the site within 2 months. Those who are offered the plots should be given

¶27

Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

CWP No. 9520 of 1997

¶29

¶30

maximum nine months to raise construction and vacate the present site. Those who do not accept the offer of allotment shall be liable to be evicted without any further notice.

¶31

We also hope that in future the State Government and the H.U.D.A. will take appropriate measures to prevent encroachments on public land and fix responsibility of the officers/officials who may be found guilty of negligence in the performance of their duties which gives rise to encroachment on public lands.”

¶32

The present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.

¶33

07.03.2014 shivani

¶34

Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Suraj Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Vs M/S Bhartia Cuttler Hammer and Anr.

Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes Vs Rameshwar and Anr.

Harinder Sangwan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dr. Arwind Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Anshu Sharma Vs Baba Farid Univ. of Health Sciences & Anr.

Azmal Ahmad and Ors. Vs Baba Farid University and Ors.