C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 15.02.2011 C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 Manjit Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.17953 of 2010 Gurdial Kaur ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.19056 of 2010 Dharminder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.19057 of 2010 Jasbir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.M.No.15982 to 15984 of 2010 in C.W.P.No.19711 of 2010 Davinder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 -2- C.W.P.No.20905 of 2010 Hardeep Kaur ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.21350 of 2010 Pargat Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.22849 of 2010 Gurbax Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.1607 of 2011 Dalip Kaur and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.1886 of 2011 Mohinder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate and Mr.H.S.Deol, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.21350 of 2010. C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 -3- Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.D.V.Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Avtar Singh Syan, Advocate, for the intervenor in CWP No.19711 of 2010. *** Ranjan Gogoi, CJ. (Oral) Notwithstanding the voluminous pleadings and hotly contested issues that have surfaced, the matter lies within a very short compass. The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to be riot victims and, therefore, to be entitled either for regularization of their unauthorized occupation over the Government flats or allotment of such flats in accordance with the Government policy. It is the case of the petitioners that though the process of identification of genuine and bonafide riot victims numbering 611 has been completed by the State Authorities, the petitioners have been left outside the purview of the aforesaid exercise which has vitally affected their rights of consideration. A perusal of the affidavit dated 14.10.2010 filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in CWP No.17953 of 2010 would indicate that the process of identification of bonafide and genuine riot victims was undertaken in accordance with the Government policy and all applicants who had applied in response to the Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short 'PUDA'), Mohali, for allotment of flats in the year 2000 (1634 in number) and 532 illegal riot victim occupants, the list of which was supplied by PUDA to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, were duly considered either for regularization or for allotment. Obviously, all such persons were allotted red cards. According to the Deputy C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 -4- Commissioner, out of the aforesaid number of persons, 611 have been identified and their names have been forwarded to the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (for short 'GLADA'). The affidavit filed by the GLADA indicates that out of the said list, 445 allotments/regularizations have been made and the remainder are in the process. Undoubtedly, the process for identification of genuine/bonafide riot victims has been made and 611 persons have been identified. The petitioners having not been included in the said list and their cases not having been considered, the only question that would arise is whether the process of identification from amongst the applicants who have submitted their applications in the year 2000 is in accordance with the terms of the Government policy in force. On going through the policy documents enclosed as Annexures R-2 & R-5 as well as R-8 to the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner in CWP No.17953 of 2010, we do not find any decision of the Government to restrict the consideration of a claim to be a riot victim with reference to any cut off date. The petitioners admittedly had not submitted applications pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2000. In the absence of a cut off date, the said fact, by itself, may not be a disqualifying factor for consideration particularly in a situation where in the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, it has been clearly mentioned that red cards were issued to the riot victims in the year 1986, 2001 and even in the year 2010. It is, thus, possible that some of them,if not all the petitioners before this Court, are genuine riot victims. A conclusion to the above effect will have to be reached before exclusion/rejection of any claim. As the process undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner was confined only to the C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 -5- applicants who had responded to the advertisement issued in the year 2000, the claim of the petitioners to be bonafide/genuine riot victims will necessarily have to be considered and determined. Thereafter, if all the petitioners or such of them are found to be riot victims in accordance with the norms laid down in the Government policies, benefits in terms of such policy, which have already been granted to the 611 identified persons, will also have to be granted to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise should, therefore, be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner before whom such of the petitioners who are interested, may file their claim along with the supporting documents as required, which would be duly verified and thereafter from such persons, a list of eligible, bonafide and genuine riot victims will be prepared for further action. There is another feature of the case which needs to be dealt with by the present order. By an interim direction, this Court had stayed the dispossession of the petitioners. The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of a claim made by the petitioners in the writ petition that they are in possession of government flats. Materials have now been laid before the Court to show that some of the petitioners, if not all, may not be correct in their assertions. In fact, it has been submitted by Sh.Sharma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the GLADA as well as learned counsel appearing for the intervenor Sh.Avtar Singh Syan in CWP No.19711 of 2010 that the addresses furnished by the petitioners are fictitious and actually such addresses pertain to the flats which are either vacant or in occupation of the government servants who had been earlier allotted such flats. In the above situation, we hereby clarify that our interim direction dated 15.10.2010 staying dispossession of the petitioners is only in respect of such of the C.W.P.No.18227 of 2010 -6- petitioners who were in occupation of vacant flats prior to the said date i.e. 15.10.2010, a fact which can be easily verified by the concerned authorities. We make it clear that our interim orders cannot have the effect of legitimising any possession after the date of the said order, or to permit any claim to possession in future. All such claims will necessarily have to be considered only after the process of actual identification of genuine/bonafide riot victims amongst the present petitioners is complete. All the writ petitions shall stand accordingly disposed of in terms of the above stated directions. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE February 15, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters? Yes/No