Punjab-Haryana High Court
Greater Mohali Area Development ... vs Jagjit Singh And Others on 16 January, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.22051 of 2010
Date of Decision : January 16, 2013
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority .....Petitioner
versus
Jagjit Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.Jasjeet Singh, Advocate, for
Mr.H.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Thind, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
-.-
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?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner-Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (in short 'GMADA') seeks quashing of the orders dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 respectively, whereby cancellation of Rehri Site No.25, Phase 11, SAS Nagar Mohali in favour of respondent No.1 has been set-aside and the allotment restored.
The short question that arises for consideration before us is whether respondent No.1 is entitled to allotment of the said Rehri Site though he is a regular employee of Municipal Council, SAS Nagar Mohali? The case of first respondent is that prior to joining the Municipal Council, he used to install a Khokha which was held to be unauthorized and after removing the illegally installed Khokhas that a Rehabilitation Policy was framed and in the survey conducted for implementation of the said policy, respondent No.1 was also found to be running the Khokha.
CWP No.22051 of 2010 [2]However, soon after the allotment of site, he was appointed in the services of Municipal Council, Mohali where he is presently serving.
The case of the petitioner-GMADA is that since respondent No.1 has got sufficient means of sustenance the benefit of Rehabilitation Policy which is actually meant for those who were deprived of their source of livelihood due to removal of unauthorized Khokhas, becomes irrelevant.
Be that as it may, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have concurrently found that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.1 was set-aside without an opportunity of hearing to him. They have, however, directed the Estate Officer, GMADA to restore the allotment after observing that about 18 other Rehri Sites have also been allotted to those who are serving in Government and/or Private Sector.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that while setting aside the cancellation of the allotment of the first respondent, the appropriate recourse would have been to remand the case to the Estate Officer for re- determining the eligibility of first respondent in terms of (i) the Rehabilitation Policy and (ii) whether he has been discriminated on the ground that he is in Municipal Council service viz-a-viz other allottees who are statedly in the service of Government and/or private sector.
Learned counsel for first respondent fairly submits that he would have no objection to the recourse if the Estate Officer is directed to consider the claim of first respondent on both these counts in a time bound manner.
For the reasons afore-stated, we allow this writ petition in part to the extent that the impugned orders dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) are modified and the matter is remitted to the Estate Officer, GMADA to re- determine the claim of the first respondent in accordance with the CWP No.22051 of 2010 [3] Rehabilitation Policy and also whether he has been discriminated viz-a-viz other allottees to whom allotments have been made though about 18 of them are statedly serving in Government/private sector. An appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken by the Estate Officer within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
$
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
$
January 16, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE