CWP No.21688 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21688 of 2008
Date of decision : 1-12-2009
Shayam Lal
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
The Assistant Commissioner and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. I.P. Attre, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)
Present writ petition has been filed by Shayam Lal. He is
aggrieved against the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated
29.05.2001 whereby the allotment of a Transit site No.1586 of Mauli
Jagran, UT, Chandigarh was cancelled and licence issued to this
effect was revoked. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed
vide Annexure P-3 and impugned order (Annexure P-2) was affirmed.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not assailed
this order in revision as the same was not maintainable. Qua
quashing of Order (Annexures P-2 and P-3) petitioner has prayed
that a writ be issued in the nature of certiorari and these orders be
CWP No.21688 of 2008
-2-
quashed.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this
Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.9919 of 2008 decided on
17.11.2009 titled as Mewa Singh versus Union Territory, Chandigarh
and Others to contend that in the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner, the allotment was sought to be cancelled on the ground
that petitioner had not constructed the tenement within the stipulated
period.
Petitioner is a slum dweller. The Chandigarh Administration
to rehabilitate the slum dwellers who were having their jhuggies in
various unauthorized slums enacted a scheme called Licence of
Transit Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979 (hereinafter
referred to as “Scheme 1979”). This Scheme was envisaged to
rehabilitate economical weaker sections of society. As per the
Scheme, petitioner had to construct one room and toilet on the transit
site which was allotted to the petitioner.
Failure of the petitioner to construct the building, led
authorities to pass Order (Annexure P-2) whereby allotment was
cancelled and licence was revoked. Order (Annexure P-2) specifically
state that since petitioner failed to construct the premises, therefore,
the site is resumed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was suffering from extreme poverty, therefore, he could not
construct the building within the specified time. The impugned order
was passed on 19.06.2001. Aggrieved against the same, the
petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal,
CWP No.21688 of 2008
-3-
petitioner had constructed the building. The appeal was filed in the
year 2006. A ground was taken that a cancellation order was never
served upon him therefore the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal observed as
under:-
“I have carefully considered the arguments of both
the parties and have gone through the record. There is no
denying the fact that allotee miserably failed to comply with
the terms and conditions of allotment and the scheme by
not constructing toilet and super structure within the
stipulated period and there was no alternative but to cancel
the allotment. Even the opportunity given by the former
Chief Administrator vide his interim order dated 1.11.2007,
on the request of the counsel for the appellant, was not
availed and the appellant failed to apply for renewal of
license after removing all the violations. The notices were
issued on the last known address of the appellant and the
fact that the appellant that he was not aware of the order of
cancellation is not sustainable. In view of these arguments,
the appeals is dismissed on merit as well as on the point of
delay and impugned order is upheld.
Announced. Parties be communicated.”
In the certified copy of the order passed by the Appellate
Authority in Para No.3, it has been noticed as under:-
“He further submitted that the appellant being poor
and uneducated person could not complete the construction
within the stipulated time due to lack of funds as he was
working as a sweeper. The appellant has now completed
the construction and, therefore, no ground exists for
sustaining the cancellation order. He further submitted
CWP No.21688 of 2008
-4-that the appellant being not well versed with law, could not
file appeal in time. He pleaded that a fresh report may be
ordered to be submitted to find the latest position regarding
status of construction.”
Some part of the abovesaid portion is missing in the true
copy attested by the counsel for the petitioner. This court can ignore
this mistake as petitioner being poor is not able to get assistance of
best of legal brains.
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate appearing for the Union
Territory has submitted that indeed petitioner has carried the
construction and has built the building but he has committed another
violation and has constructed a cantilever in violation of the Building
Plan.
Case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the proposition
of law propounded in Mewa Singh’s case (supra), which held that no
new ground can be introduced to resume the property. In the present
case, show cause notice stated that for non-construction, site is to
be resumed, but finally petitioner was non-suited on the ground that
in violation of building plan he has constructed cantilever.
Mr. I.P. Attre, Advocate for the petitioner has stated that
cantilever will be demolished within three months from today and the
building shall be brought in consonance with the Building Plan and all
violations shall be cured. This court is conscious of the fact that the
petitioner who is allotted a transit site being a slum dweller has spent
all his life time saving to raise the building which is a one room
therefore he cannot be deprived of the roof where he is living along
CWP No.21688 of 2008
-5-
with his family. Therefore the present writ petition is accepted subject
to condition that the petitioner shall remove the cantilever within
three months from today, in case, petitioner failed to do so, the
Chandigarh Administration will be well within its rights to pass a fresh
order of cancellation of allotment and revocation of licence.
Consequently Orders (Annexure P-2 and P-3) are set aside.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
1-12-2009 JUDGE
manju