Punjab-Haryana High Court
**** vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 July, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.2120 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 4, 2012 **** M/s. Santokh Singh Karambir Singh & Ors. . . . Petitioners vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH ****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
**** Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for respondents No.3,4&7 Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.6 Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate for respondent No.8-UOI **** SURYA KANT J.
(1) The petitioners in this writ petition seek quashing of the public notice issued on 30.01.2010 (Annexure P15) proposing to auction the land of Mewa Mandi at Amritsar. They also seek quashing of the eviction orders passed against them under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, besides a direction not to displace them from their present place of functioning i.e. Mewa Mandi where they are said to be running CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -2- the business of fruit and vegetables since the time of their forefathers.
(2) The case has a chequered history with a voluminous record though the issue which finally survives falls within a short compass. Suffice it would be to mention here that the forefathers of the petitioners started wholesale business of fruits and vegetables in an area approximately measuring 8 acres in the heart of city Amritsar known as Mewa Mandi. There is indeed no dispute that the petitioners or their predecessors are/were not owners of the subject property though they were the occupiers and had obtained the requisite license from the competent authority to run the afore-stated business. The aforesaid property was urban nazool land and vests in the Municipal Council (now Municipal Corporation, Amritsar). (3) The State Government and other respondent-authorities in the year 2002 decided to shift fruits and vegetable market from the congested place of Mewa Mandi to the New Mandi Complex known as Vallah Mandi. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the Fruits and Vegetable Union in CWP No.5884 of 1995 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 21.09.1999.
The licensee(s) and/or their Union preferred LPA No.15 of 2000 which is stated to be pending without any interim stay. It further appears that the bone of contention in the afore-stated first round of litigation was against non-adjustment of all the CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -3- registered traders at the new Mandi site. Only 40 out of 75 traders had originally qualified the criteria. The norms for allotment of sites in the new Mandi on preferential basis to the existing traders were thereafter relaxed as per the allotment policy of 1998 so as to accommodate all the Traders to whom now one plot each has been allotted at a discounted price of Rs.5,77,500/- with a condition to raise construction within a period of two years from the date of allotment. (4) The fact of the matter is that the fruits and vegetable traders did not want to leave the old place i.e. Mewa Mandi, hence they have been raising one objection or the other against shifting of their business to the new place. The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar then initiated eviction proceedings against them and consequential eviction orders have been passed against the traders. No legal or factual foundation has been made to assail these orders, for which there is otherwise an alternative remedy available under the 1973 Act.
(5) The petitioners herein were not amongst the 40 traders to whom alternative plots on preferential basis were initially allotted in the new Mandi complex. However, they were also allotted such plots after the criteria was relaxed. Instead of raising construction at the new site within the stipulated period of two years, the petitioners who obviously do not want to shift from CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -4- Mewa Mandi, have in this writ petition raised various issues including the following two principal contentions :-
(i) the plots allotted to them in the new Vallah Mandi fall within the radius of 1000 yards of the Vallah Ammunition Depot of the Army who does not permit any Civilian to raise construction within the said prohibited distance;
(ii) no basic amenities have been provided in the new Vallah Mandi to run the business as is evident from some of the photographs placed on record.
(6) It was keeping in view the gravity and future implications of the issues urged on behalf of the petitioners that vide interim order dated 08.02.2010 the respondents were permitted to auction the property in Mewa Mandi i.e. old Mandi but no confirmation was to be made without the permission of this Court. Thereafter and in order to meet with objection (i) mentioned in para 5 above, this Court vide order dated August 2, 2010, advised the official respondents to hold a meeting with the Army authorities and resolve the issue. A fresh demarcation was then held which was accepted by the Army authorities. Consequently the interim order dated 08.02.2010 was modified on 11.10.2010 and the CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -5- respondents were permitted to proceed further. It appears that the above stated interim order was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioners in Letters Patent Appeal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(7) Be that as it may there is no gainsaying that if the site allotted to the petitioners in the new Mandi Complex was within the prohibited area of Ammunition Depot, the very purpose of making preferential allotment in their favour would have been defeated. However, after the fresh demarcation carried out jointly by the Army and Civil Authorities under the orders of this Court, the Union of India through Ministry of Defence has filed its reply/affidavit and in para 16 it has been categorically averred that the "the alterative site allotted to the petitioners in 2009 lies outside the 1000 yards Prohibitory Zone". An officer in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel has also placed his affidavit dated 02.11.2011 on record, para 14 whereof states that:-
"It is further submitted that the site of the said newly allotted plots has been surveyed jointly by Army & Civil Authorities twice in year 2006 & 2010 and has been certified to be outside 1000 yards Prohibitory Zone. Further, the letter quoted is unsubstantiated and it probably refers to some other site & not the site allotted to the petitioners..."CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -6-
(8) During the course of hearing also, all the respondents have taken a categoric stand that none of the allotted sites falls within the Prohibitory Zone and no obstruction whatsoever is being caused by the Army Authorities against raising the construction. The afore-stated stand taken by the Army Authorities fully redresses the first grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners. (9) Adverting to the second objection raised by the petitioners against their shifting to the new Mandi Complex, namely, non- availability of basic amenities, Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate representing Market Committee, Amritsar on the basis of the written instructions has made a categoric statement that most of the amenities have already been provided in Vallah Mandi. She has handed over copies of two communications dated 22.06.2012 and 26.06.2012, the translated contents whereof are to the following effect:-
"In respect of the above, it is informed that in the additional area of the new Sabji Mandi Vallah the work of electricity is complete and in running condition. The detail is as under:-
1. 10 meter long pole 9 in No.
2. 250 watt. Melalite street light fittings 20 in No. CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -7-
3. Pillar Box size 100 x 900 x 350 mm with service 1 in No."
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
"In respect of above said subject and reference, it is informed that construction Wing (Civil) has provided internal roads, shed, platform, CC flooring parking and boundary wall of the Mandi etc. amenities have been provided in Vallah Mandi."
(10)The respondents have thus come up with an unequivocal stand that all the basic amenities needed for a fruit and vegetable market have been put in place, nevertheless, we deem it appropriate to observe that while pre-existence of all the 'Amenities' as defined under the Act/Rules, cannot be put as a condition by the petitioners for shifting to the new venue, however, three basic amenities, namely, roads, electricity and water supply with sewerage will have to be functional to enable the allottees to complete the construction at the new sites. The deficiencies, if any, pointed out in this regard by the petitioners shall be redressed by the respondent-Authorities as early as possible but not later than two months from today. CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -8- (11)In all fairness to learned counsel for the petitioners, he urged that two years' period granted to the petitioners for completion of construction at the new site should commence now with the disposal of these proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently contended that the petitioners have been adopting one or the other delaying tactics and since the prescribed period stood expired in the year 2011, no further extension deserves to be granted either in law or equity.
(12)We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and are of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the petitioners are granted a period of six months more to construct their sites at the new Vallah Mandi subject to, however, the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner(s) shall give an undertaking by way of an affidavit to the competent authority that they shall complete the construction within the extended period of six months without raising objection of non-availability of the alleged basic amenities;
(ii) they shall immediately surrender the unauthorized possession in Mewa Mandi to the competent authority to enable the latter to conclude the auction proceedings; CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc -9-
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall shift their business to new Vallah Mandi within a period of two weeks and shall carry out the same temporarily in the manner as they have been running from Mewa Mandi without any premises;
(iv) if the petitioner(s) is/are unable to shift their business to the new Mandi complex, their license shall not be suspended or revoked but shall be kept in abeyance till they construct the site and re-commence the business, though subject to their complying with conditions No.(i) to (iii) above;
(13)Before concluding, we remind the authorities of their obligation to ensure that the amenities promised by them shall have to be provided in due course of time especially when the Vallah Mandi becomes fully functional. The Authorities thus shall be obligated to continue with the ongoing process of installation of these amenities and in the event of any lapse, the petitioners shall be entitled to agitate the matter before an appropriate forum. (14)With these directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(15)Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
(SURYA KANT) Judge CWP No.2120 of 2010.doc - 10 - July 4, 2012 vishal shonkar (R.P. NAGRATH) Judge