IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4961 of 2009 Date of decision: March 30, 2009. Balwant Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Union Territory of Chandigarh ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Shri G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement to sell with the original allottees of industrial plot No.220, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh and paid “the entire requisite amount” to the respondent – Chandigarh Administration “through allottees”. It is not in dispute that as per the terms and conditions of allotment, the original allottees could not sell the site by entering into an agreement to sell. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance as well as declaration and injunction against the original allottees. The decree for specific performance was declined being time-barred though a declaration regarding ownership was issued in his favour. Admittedly, the Chandigarh Administration, who had allotted the plot to the original allottees on certain terms and conditions, were not party to the said civil suit. That decree is obviously not binding upon the respondents. The petitioner, based upon the said decree, approached the Permanent Lok Adalat who vide its order dated 27.6.2006 directed the Chandigarh Administration “to carry out the change in its record incorporating the name of the applicant as owner of Plot No.220 IND 273, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh in place of his predecessors”. The said order of the Permanent Lok Adalat was set aside by this Court in CWP No.181 of 2008 after holding that the Permanent Lok Adalats are not meant to decide seriously disputed questions of title as Permanent Lok Adalat is not an alternative court and have been established to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved citizens against the inaction or wrongful action of the authorities dealing with public utility services. The said judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.1.2009. The petitioner has now approached this Court as an 'alternative forum' suggested to be approached by this Court while setting aside the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Suffice it to say that the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction is neither meant to resolve disputed question of title nor the nature of relief sought by the petitioner falls within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to institute a civil suit, if so advised or permissible in law. Dasti on usual charges. March 30, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge