IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.234 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 16, 2011. Municipal Corporation, Bathinda .....Petitioner versus Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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-Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September, 2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Bathinda, dismissing its petition filed under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against respondent No.3, as well as the order dated 9.6.2010 (Annexure P-8) whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act, has dismissed its appeal. The facts on record reveal that respondent No.3 was allotted a Khokha by the petitioner-Corporation vide its resolution No.317 dated 5.11.1993 (Annexure P-1) on payment of Teh Bazari. The said allotment C.W.P.No .234 of 2011 2 was subsequently revoked vide resolution No.38 dated 9.5.2000 (Annexure P-2) and respondent No.3 was asked to hand-over the possession of the site. The non-vacation of the same has prompted the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings against respondent No.3 which have been rejected by both the authorities. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.3 was a tenant in shop No.1 at Railway Road, Bathinda, before the grant of Teh Bazari vide the above stated resolution dated 5.11.1993. He was asked by the Municipality to vacate the said shop for widening of the road with a promise that he will be adjusted somewhere else. Respondent No.3 acted upon the said promise, vacated the shop and was then allotted the Khokha on Teh Bazari, as mentioned above. The Municipality has now turned around from its promise and has revoked the Teh Bazari to evict respondent No.3. In my considered view, the authorities below have rightly observed that respondent No.3 is entitled to be adjusted at an alternative site before his only source of livelihood is snatched. No case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. February 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE