IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008
Date of Decision : February 10, 2009
Barinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
D.P.S. Kharbanda and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.2.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent
injunction so as to restrain respondent No. 1 from allotting commercial
site No. 204, newly carved out in I.D.H. Market to anybody else other
than him. He also sought mandatory injunction requiring respondent
No.1 to allot the said site to him in I.D.H. Market in terms of allotment
order passed by Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local
Government and Urban Development Department, Chandigarh. On
22.8.1989 the suit was decreed by the trial Court with a direction to
respondent No.1 to allot site No. 204 to him. The order of the trial
C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -2-
Court was assailed by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. After the
decision by the lower appellate Court, the matter came up to the High
Court in R.S.A. No. 3606 of 2005. Similar civil suit filed by one
Kanwaljit Singh also ended up in this Court by way of R.S.A.
No. 2938 of 2005. Both the second appeals were heard together on
December 18, 2007 when the appellants in both the appeals got their
statements recorded separately to the effect that they did not have any
objection in case site No. 204 was allotted to either of them and the
other one to be allotted a similar commercial shop in the same or
similar market. In view of the aforementioned stand of the petitioner
and Kanwaljit Singh, both the appeals were disposed of as not pressed.
Keeping in view the fact that the dispute related to the allotment of
sites to the outsees in the Golden Temple Beautification Project taken
up by the government in 1988 and nearly 20 years had passed since
then but the sufferers were still waiting for allotment of suitable sites,
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was directed to allot the sites to the
petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh within a period of two months from the
date of submission of the copy of the said order.
According to the petitioner, despite passing of the order
dated December 18, 2007 by this Court as well as sending of
representations dated 22.2.2008 and 26.3.2008 to respondent No.1, he
had not been provided the suitable site in I.D.H. Market. According to
C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -3-
the petitioner, respondent No. 1 deliberately and intentionally
disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2007 and, thus,
committed contempt. As such, he is liable to be punished under the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Reply has been filed by respondent No.1, who is posted
asCommissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar wherein it is
averred that after receiving certified copy of the order, a notice was
given to the petitioner as well as to Kanwaljit Singh for the allotment
of site No. 204 in I.D.H. Market by conducting draw of lots between
them and the other person to be given alternative site. Both of them
agreed to the proposal. The draw of lots was conducted in presence of
both the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh, out of which slip of site No.
204 came in favour of Kanwaljit Singh and accordingly, he was
allotted the site. Proceedings were recorded at the spot, copy of which
has been attached with the reply as Annexure R.1. After the
completion of the proceedings, a detailed order was passed by
respondent No. 1 vide which site No. 204 in I.D.H. Market was allotted
to Kanwaljit Singh as he was successful in draw of lots and direction
was given to the officer concerned to carve out site No. 204-A in
I.D.H. Market after making necessary amendment in the layout plan
and to do the needful in minimal time. However, since carving out a
new site required amendment/modification of such scheme of I.D.H.
C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -4-
Market, the matter was put up before the House and the same was
approved vide Resolution No. MTP-15 dated 21.7.2008. Copy of the
resolution has been attached as Annexure R.3.
On August 07, 2008, this Court directed Principal
Secretary, Local Government, Punjab and Director Local Government,
Punjab to expedite the process of formal approval of the resolution
received from the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar so that the
provisional allotment be made in favour of the petitioner which could
be regularised later on. On September 29, 2008, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1 stated that pursuant to the order passed on August 07,
2008, allotment letter in respect of site bearing No. 204-A had been
issued in favour of the petitioner. This fact was, however, denied by
learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1 was directed to place on record a copy of the
allotment letter. Copy of letter dated 25.9.2008, whereby plot No. 204-
A in I.D.H. Market had been allotted to the petitioner provisionally
subject to the approval of the amendment in the layout plan by the
Local Government Department, Punjab was duly placed on record by
learned counsel for respondent No. 1. However, it was stated that the
matter had been forwarded to the government for approval but the
same had not been granted. In view of the same, learned counsel for
the petitioner prayed for an adjournment so as to implead the Local
C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -5-
Government Department, Punjab as a party-respondent. Necessary
application in that regard was also made by the petitioner which was
allowed on December 15, 2008 and D.S. Bains, Principal Secretary,
Local Government, Punjab was impleaded as respondent No. 2.
Today, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the
respondents have unequivocally stated that approval has since been
granted to the amendment in the layout plan by the Local Government,
Department, Punjab and letter of allotment has also been issued in
favour of the petitioner on 6.2.2009 regarding plot No. 204-A in I.D.H.
Market.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that site
No. 204-A which has been allotted to the petitioner in I.D.H. Market
has been carved out from the tubewell site and, therefore, not suitable
for occupation by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that
site No. 204-A,which stands allotted in favour of the petitioner was
duly pointed out to both the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh before
conducting draw of lots between them in respect of allotment of site
No. 204. At that point of time, the petitioner never objected regarding
the suitability of site No. 204-A. After having participated in the draw
of lots in respect of site No. 204 in which the petitioner remained
C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -6-
unsuccessful, the same having fallen to the share of Kanwaljit Singh
and not the petitioner, he cannot now object to the suitability or
otherwise of site No. 204-A.
In view of the above, it is clear that the order passed by the
High Court on 18.12.2007 while disposing of the regular second
appeals filed on behalf of the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh directing
respondent No. 1 to allot the sites to them stands complied with.
Resultantly, the petition has been rendered infructuous and, therefore,
disposed of. Rule is discharged.
( T.P.S. MANN )
February 10, 2009 JUDGE
satish