High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rameshwar Dass And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rameshwar Dass And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 December, 2009
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                   Civil Writ Petition No.18483 of 2009

                   Date of decision: 7th December, 2009


Rameshwar Dass and others
                                                                 ... Petitioners
                                   Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                               ... Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:     Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

24 residents of Malerkotla have approached this Court with a

prayer that notices (Annexure P-3 and P-4) dated 10th and 22nd

September, 2009 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Council,

Malerkotla, whereby they have been asked to vacate the sites

immediately, be quashed.

During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners

has stated that construction of flyover is need of the hour and the city

requires the same. Counsel submits that the petitioners do not want to

create hurdle in the construction of flyover, but as and when the

construction of the flyover is to commence, they themselves will vacate the

site to facilitate construction of flyover, provided 15 days notice is given in

advance from the day when the construction of flyover is to commence. To

fortify this submission, counsel for the petitioners relies upon Annexure P-

5.

Issue notice of motion.

Civil Writ Petition No.18483 of 2009 2

On the asking of Court, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional

Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr.Anil

Kumar Sharma is also on the panel of Municipal Council, Sangrur,

therefore, he accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 as well. Two

copies of the petition have been handed over to him.

Counsel for the State submits that let petitioners file an

undertaking before the District Magistrate that they will voluntarily vacate

the site to facilitate construction of the flyover. Counsel for the State

further submits that in case such an undertaking is filed by the petitioners,

a 15 days notice in advance shall be given to them from the date when

construction of the flyover is to commence.

In view of the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioners and respondents, which are not contrary to each other, this

Court is of the view that petitioners should file an undertaking before the

District Magistrate within ten days from today that from the date the actual

construction of the flyover is to commence, they will themselves hand over

the possession to the respondents. However, before the commencement

of the construction, in case machinery, equipment is to be parked at the

site or any other procedure/measurement etc. is to be undertaken for

preparation of the commencement of construction of flyover, petitioners

will not cause any hurdle in the same. On furnishing of the undertaking, 15

days advance notice will be given to the petitioners to vacate the site, from

the date when actual construction has to commence.

Counsel for the petitioners has made an alternative prayer

and has stated that from the shops/khokhas, petitioners are earning their

livelihood, therefore, Municipal Council may consider grant of an

alternative site to the petitioners for carrying on their business.
Civil Writ Petition No.18483 of 2009 3

I have no doubt that in case, there is any policy of the

Government, the claim of the petitioners for alternative site shall be

considered by the Municipal Council according to prevailing policy.

With these observations, present petition is disposed of.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
December 7, 2009
rps