L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 15.02.2011 L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Kuljit Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.256 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Harmeet Kaur and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.257 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Buta Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.258 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Gurdev Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.259 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Sukhdev Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.261 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Kartar Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -2- L.P.A.No.262 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Ranjit Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.263 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Parminder Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.264 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Gurmeet Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.265 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Harkiran Kaur and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.266 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Amrit Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.267 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Joginder Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -3- L.P.A.No.268 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Onkar Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.269 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Jagjit Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.270 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Balbir Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.271 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Jaswinder Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.272 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Angrez Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.273 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Tarlok Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.274 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -4- vs. Jasbir Kaur and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.275 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Surjeet Singh and others ....Respondent(s) L.P.A.No.276 of 2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority ....Appellant(s) vs. Amarjit Singh and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Dharam Vir Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Ranjan Gogoi, CJ. (Oral) All these appeals being directed against a common order dated 14.9.2010 passed in CWP No.16345 of 2009 and other connected cases were heard together with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -5- disposed of the writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, by issuing directions with regard to the manner in which the illegal occupation of the flats by the riot victims (victims of 1984 anti sikh riots) are required to be considered for regularization. The said flats which consist of LIG as well as MIG flats have been constructed by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short 'PUDA') and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short 'GMADA') in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The essence of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, shorn off details, commences with the task of identification of the victims of 1984 riots who are entitled for consideration and after such identification of the genuine and bona fide riot affected victims for regularization of the flats in their occupation in terms of the Government policy adopted from time to time. The learned Single Judge has also issued directions that in the event the 87 LIG flats that have been identified for allotment/regularization prove to be inadequate, further steps for allotment in accordance with the Government policy would be required to be taken. The Deputy Commissioner SAS Nagar, Mohali was directed to constitute a Committee to undertake the exercise of identification of the genuine and bonafide riot affected victims and thereafter the District Administration was directed to approach the GMADA/PUDA to formally allot adequate dwelling units of the approved size so as to make it possible to regularise the illegal occupation of such flats by the riot victims. The exercise directed was required to be completed within the time frame of three months stipulated in the order dated 14.9.2010. A recapitulation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge was considered necessary to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant which have been confined L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -6- to direction No.5 contained in the order dated 14.9.29010 of the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid direction No.5 is in the following terms.:- “{5}. Needless to say that if any dwelling unit/booth or other immoveable property(ies) has already been allotted to anyone of riot-affected victims on concessional rates, the respondent-authorities would be well within their right in dispossessing such beneficiary from illegally occupied flat(s) as the Government concession cannot be claimed time and again by him/them.” It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said direction be appropriately clarified so as to spell out the rights of the appellant-Authority to order for the eviction of other categories of illegal occupants of the flats as the aforesaid direction appears to be confined to only one category of illegal occupants. A reading of the 5th direction issued by the learned Single Judge makes it clear that if any allotment had already been made to a riot affected victim at a concessional rate and such victim is also in illegal possession of another flat, the respondent-Authorities were given the liberty of taking steps to dispossess such a person from the second flat. The purport and effect of the 5th direction issued by the learned Single Judge, therefore, is absolutely clear. If any such riot victim, who in addition to what has been allotted to him at a concessional rate, is in occupation of any other flat in an illegal manner, such riot victim will have no right to second flat and will be liable for eviction by the concerned Authorities. The question of eviction of any other riot victim apart from the category mentioned above can arise L.P.A.No.260 of 2011 -7- only after the exercise as directed by the learned Single Judge is completed and identification of the bona fide and genuine riot victims, who are entitled to allotment/regularization, is made by the concerned Authorities. Thereafter, if any person does not come within the scope and ambit of the expression “riot affected victim” but is found to be in illegal possession, such a person undoubtedly, at that stage and point of time, would be liable to be evicted by the appellant or any other duly empowered authority. The above being the true purport and effect of the 5th direction issued by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that all the Letters Patent Appeals should be disposed of with the above clarification. Consequently, each of the appeals under consideration stands decided in terms of what has been observed by us above in respect of the 5th direction issued by the learned Single Judge. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE February 15, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters? Yes/No.