Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prithpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 September, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
No.10587 of 2013
CWP No.19966 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19966 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision:1.9.2014
Prithpal Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Mr. H.B.S. Baidwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.
****
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2-Greater Mohali Area Development Authority to allot one booth site in lieu of Kiosk of Smt. Jasbir Kaur-respondent No.5 for the reason that he is a purchaser of the said kiosk on 31.03.2005.
The petitioner claims to be carrying his business activities from kiosk No.208, situated at Janta Market at Phase-3B1 Mohali. He claims that he has purchased the same from Smt. Jasbir Kaur. In proof of purchase, he relies upon an affidavit (Annexure P-3) executed by Smt. Jasbir Kaur on 31.03.2005. The petitioner asserts that he has been paying teh bazari since the date of purchase.
A survey was conducted in the year 1998 with a view to convert unauthorized shops of Janta Market into an authorized market. In survey, 377 persons were found running their businesses in the Janta Market. GULATI DIWAKER 2014.09.08 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.10587 of 2013 CWP No.19966 2 The name of Smt. Jasbir Kaur, the vendor of the petitioner, appears at Serial No.208. In the survey conducted, members of the same family were grouped together i.e. A, B, C etc. After survey in the year 1998, the possession of some of the kiosks was transferred by the occupants either by sale or lease.
A fire incident took place in Janta Market on 30.05.2007. To accommodate the victims who were carrying on business in the Janta Market, a policy decision was taken on 12.07.2008 to allot Pucca booths to the shopkeepers running their businesses from these kiosks and that one booth should be provided for one kiosk at the time of survey; wherever there were more than one person working together in one structure they would be given one booth jointly. It was also found that 56 persons were closely related to each other i.e. father-son, mother-son, father-daughter, mother- daughter etc. Therefore, as per the rehabilitation policy, a family is taken as a unit for the purpose of rehabilitation and these persons cannot claim independent booth. It was decided that husband, wife and minor children should be considered for one family unit.
The grievance of the petitioner is that name of Smt. Jasbir Kaur appears at Serial No.208 and the name of Baljit Singh (husband of Smt. Jasbir Kaur) appears at Serial No.145 in the list but only one booth has been allotted. Since, one kiosk was sold prior to allotment of one booth to them, therefore, the petitioner as a purchaser of kiosk and occupant is entitled to allotment of booth in his own right.
In CWP No.2973 of 2009 titled as Mangal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 03.08.2012, the petitioners who were members of the family, i.e. petitioner No.1 and 2 were husband and wife and petitioners No.3 and 4 were their sons, claimed independent booths. There was a reference to respondents No.5 and 6 in the said writ petition that Baljit Singh and Jasbir Kaur have been given separate serial numbers. The said GULATI DIWAKER 2014.09.08 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.10587 of 2013 CWP No.19966 3 writ petition was allowed; the matter was remitted to the authorities to consider the matter of the allotment of booths to the petitioners in the light of the policy and the written statement filed in the Court. There was direction to take a decision about re-allotment of separate booth to the petitioners as early as possible. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to allotment of a separate booth. Reliance is placed upon the order passed in Mangal Singh's case (supra).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present writ petition. In reply filed on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6, it is mentioned that petitioner is son of real sister (namely Beant Kaur) of Baljit Sngh and that booth No.482, Phase 3B1 has been allotted to Baljit Singh on 15.04.2010. It is also mentioned that the affidavit dated 31.03.2005 was given to the petitioner on account of close relation of the present petitioner with respondents No.5 and 6. It is also mentioned that a sum of Rs.25,000/- each was paid to respondents No.5 and 6 after the occurrence of tragedy in the year 2007 and the whole record of respondent No.2 of payment of teh bazari is in name of respondent No.5.
In a separate reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, it is stated that the name of the petitioner is not found in the survey report dated 06.11.1998 wherein 378 persons were found carrying on their business in 322 temporary makeshift shops of various sizes/dimensions. In respect of 130 booths, an advertisement was issued for allotment of booths by draw of lots on 15.06.2007. Neither the name of the petitioner appeared in the said survey list nor the petitioner objected to such survey list published by way of a public notice. After the publication of the public notice, a fire took place and the draw of lots dated 15.06.2007 was postponed. Ultimately, the letter of allotment was issued to respondents No.5 and 6 in respect of Booth No.482, Phase 3B1, Mohali. It is also pointed out that a complaint was GULATI DIWAKER 2014.09.08 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.10587 of 2013 CWP No.19966 4 received that in fact respondent No.5-Jasbir Kaur is mentioned as daughter of Gurcharan Singh but in fact she is wife of respondent No.6-Baljit Singh and therefore mistake was corrected after providing opportunity of hearing on 21.04.2009.
In the survey conducted in the year 1998, the petitioner was not found to be in possession of any kiosk. The claim of the petitioner is based upon an affidavit dated 31.03.2005 but it is explained by respondents No.5 and 6 that affidavit was given in view of close relationship of petitioner with the said respondents. In fact, the respondents No.5 and 6 have been paid compensation as victim of the fire in the year 2007. The petitioner was, thus, not treated as victim in the year 2007 as well. It has also come on record that the petitioner never disputed survey list or asserted his claim for allotment of a separate booth until he submitted representation on 04.08.2010. The right of allotment of booth in terms of the scheme stands satisfied, when a booth was allotted. The petitioner is not entitled to another booth for the reason that he is a purchaser from Jasbir Kaur when the entitlement of Jasbir Kaur was taken into consideration for allotment of a booth jointly with her husband.
Thus, for the reasons recorded, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2014 (KULDIP SINGH)
'D. Gulati' JUDGE
GULATI DIWAKER
2014.09.08 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document