Civil Writ Petition No. 9354 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9354 of 2011 Date of Decision : 25.5.2011 Jagir Singh .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a 1984 riots victim and has been issued a Red Card by the Government of Punjab. He further contends that the petitioner was in possession of flat No.1248, Sector 32-A, Ludhiana, which the petitioner voluntarily surrendered as he was informed that the said flat had already been allotted to somebody else prior to the petitioner taking over the possession of the said flat. He contends that despite representation having been preferred by the petitioner dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure (P-5) the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the flat as per the policy of the Government of Punjab is not being considered merely on the ground that now he is not in possession of any flat. His further contention is that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 22849 of 2010 wherein his name found mentioned at Sr. No. 29. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order Civil Writ Petition No. 9354 of 2011 -2- dated 15.2.2011 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the consideration of his claim for allotment of a flat. He apprehends that his claim would not be considered in the light of the fact that the petitioner had vacated the flat and it is only the claim of such persons who are in possession of the flat which would be considered. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner is totally misplaced as while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, who were similarly situated as petitioner, and the petitioner was also one of the petitioners in CWP No. 22849 of 2010, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of the directions given therein, wherein it has been mentioned that 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 611 identified persons, will also have to be granted to the petitioners. In view of these observations, the Court has no doubt that the claim of the petitioner has to be considered as per the Policy of the Government and, therefore, does not call for any further orders by this Court. Petition stands disposed of. 25.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE