IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 685 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 3, 2009 Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Chaman Lal …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 4.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 8056 of 2007, allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner- respondent. Learned Single Judge has issued direction to allot a shop to him by suitably enhancing the monthly rent of Rs. 5/- which he was paying since the year 1978 before demolition of his Barber shop. Learned Single Judge has also issued direction to the appellants to keep in view the paying capacity and estimated income of the writ petitioner-respondent and the fact that he had already spent over 28 years as Barber at the railway station. An opinion has also been expressed that the monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- as suggested by the appellants in terms of policy dated 8.6.2005 was highly excessive. 2. Facts are not much in dispute. The writ petitioner-respondent was LPA No. 685 of 2009 (O&M) allotted a Barber shop in the year 1978 at the railway platform at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The said shop was demolished apparently without following any procedure influenced by the long period of occupation of the shop for 28 years. On 8.6.2005, the Government of India, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi, issued policy instructions providing for licensing of railway land for commercial plots. On the basis of the aforesaid policy the writ petitioner- respondent was offered a shop measuring 2.44 mtrs. x 3.66 mtrs. (8.93 sqms.) at the rent of more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. 3. Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the policy dated 8.6.2005 has been virtually set aside by the learned Single Judge as direction has been issued to suitably amend the rate of rent by keeping in view the paying capacity and estimated income of the writ petitioner-respondent and the fact that he has already spent over 28 years as Barber in the rented premises at the railway platform. He has also submitted that the writ petitioner-respondent has no indefeasible right to continue as a tenant/licensee of the railway property. 4. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in the instant appeal. The principle of granting protection to those who are in occupation of Government land is not un-known to the jurisprudence of real estate. One of the factor which is always kept in mind in these type of cases is the long occupation of a public property which is at the base of bread and butter of a tenant/licensee. In the case of M/s Labha Ram & Sons v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 2086, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has reminded the State Government that it had inherent obligation to provide all the licensed dealers sufficient accommodation for carrying on their trade if the old market area was de-notified and the new market area was developed. Hon’ble the Supreme 2 LPA No. 685 of 2009 (O&M) Court has held that mere providing of an opportunity to compete with the rest of the public for getting accommodation in the new market is not sufficient to discharge such an inherent obligation of the Government. Accordingly, necessary relief was granted to the uprooted Commission Agents who were not as poor as the writ petitioner-respondent in the instant case. There is no reason why the same principle would not apply to the present case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has taken the correct view by issuing direction to the appellants to allot the area for Barber shop to the writ petitioner-respondent. There is no illegality in issuance of direction for fixing of rent by keeping in view the earlier rate of rent, 28 years of occupation of the premises and the income/paying capacity of the writ petitioner-respondent. There is, thus, no exception provided to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is wholly un-warranted and does not merit admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order in the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and other applications. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) August 3, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3