IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.412 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:7.7.2009 Ombir Singh ......Appellant Vs. M.C.Faridabad etc. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Dhull, Advocate for the respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge whereby, while not allowing prayer for allotment of plot, directed that the respondents may act as per then declared policy for rehabilitation of unauthorized encroachers on public land. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Faridabad filed affidavit explaining that there was encroachment on public property to the extent that 27 jhuggi clusters stood on about 11.836 acres whereas the remaining 12 Jhuggi clusters were located on an area of about 77.36 acres and the encroachments covered roads, berms, banks of nallahs, park sites, green belts and other project sites. In accordance with two housing projects under Jawahar Lal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission, 2896 houses were likely to be completed by 31.3.2009 which will be allotted in easy instalments to the deserving persons. L.P.A.No.412 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 3. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the petitioners that those who had constructed houses un-athorizedly on public land, should be allowed to continue in possession and disposed of the petition with the direction that the respondents should implement the policy within the time frame set therein. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that he is entitled to continue in possession in exercise of his right and vacant plots are available which can be allotted to him. Earlier some plots have been allotted in similar circumstances. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. There is no right under any law to allow unauthorized encroachers to continue in possession on public land or to allot plots, in absence of a policy. The issue was dealt with in an earlier Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered by one of us (Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.) in Civil Revision No. 3563 of 2003 (Chuni Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ) decided on 10th September, 2003, as follows: “Right to shelter is considered to be a fundamental right to life. Food, shelter and clothing are the minimum human rights. Reference is made to decisions of the Apex Court in Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630, Olga Tellis vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1986 SC 180, P.G.Gupta vs. State of Gujarat, 1955 (2) SCC 182, Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 L.P.A.No.412 of 2009 (O&M) -3- and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others, AIR 1977 SC 152. Problem of homeless people is globally recognized and global strategies have been framed for the purpose. Absence of sufficient housing facilities to meet the ever- growing demand of the population is leading to slums which have been ignored either on account of negligence or extraneous considerations. Some aspects of the problem have been considered by the Apex Court in Chameli Singh's case. As held by the Apex Court, it is for the authorities to take necessary steps to meet the housing needs of all citizens. At the same time, public property cannot be allowed to be encroached and concerned authorities have to ensure constant vigilance on encroachment. No right can be claimed to encroach upon public property. Once encroachment is allowed for a long period, authorities are required to act fairly. It may not be necessary, as a condition for ejectment of the encroacher, that he must be provided with an alternative accommodation at the expense of the State. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case (supra), it was observed in para 29: “ Normally, the court may not, as a rule, directs that the encroacher should be provided with an alternative accommodation before ejectment when they encroached public properties..............” It was L.P.A.No.412 of 2009 (O&M) -4- observed that it is for the authorities to prepare appropriate schemes.” 7. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 07, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No