IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 10, 2009 Barinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus D.P.S. Kharbanda and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain respondent No. 1 from allotting commercial site No. 204, newly carved out in I.D.H. Market to anybody else other than him. He also sought mandatory injunction requiring respondent No.1 to allot the said site to him in I.D.H. Market in terms of allotment order passed by Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Government and Urban Development Department, Chandigarh. On 22.8.1989 the suit was decreed by the trial Court with a direction to respondent No.1 to allot site No. 204 to him. The order of the trial C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -2- Court was assailed by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. After the decision by the lower appellate Court, the matter came up to the High Court in R.S.A. No. 3606 of 2005. Similar civil suit filed by one Kanwaljit Singh also ended up in this Court by way of R.S.A. No. 2938 of 2005. Both the second appeals were heard together on December 18, 2007 when the appellants in both the appeals got their statements recorded separately to the effect that they did not have any objection in case site No. 204 was allotted to either of them and the other one to be allotted a similar commercial shop in the same or similar market. In view of the aforementioned stand of the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh, both the appeals were disposed of as not pressed. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute related to the allotment of sites to the outsees in the Golden Temple Beautification Project taken up by the government in 1988 and nearly 20 years had passed since then but the sufferers were still waiting for allotment of suitable sites, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was directed to allot the sites to the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh within a period of two months from the date of submission of the copy of the said order. According to the petitioner, despite passing of the order dated December 18, 2007 by this Court as well as sending of representations dated 22.2.2008 and 26.3.2008 to respondent No.1, he had not been provided the suitable site in I.D.H. Market. According to C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -3- the petitioner, respondent No. 1 deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2007 and, thus, committed contempt. As such, he is liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1, who is posted asCommissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar wherein it is averred that after receiving certified copy of the order, a notice was given to the petitioner as well as to Kanwaljit Singh for the allotment of site No. 204 in I.D.H. Market by conducting draw of lots between them and the other person to be given alternative site. Both of them agreed to the proposal. The draw of lots was conducted in presence of both the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh, out of which slip of site No. 204 came in favour of Kanwaljit Singh and accordingly, he was allotted the site. Proceedings were recorded at the spot, copy of which has been attached with the reply as Annexure R.1. After the completion of the proceedings, a detailed order was passed by respondent No. 1 vide which site No. 204 in I.D.H. Market was allotted to Kanwaljit Singh as he was successful in draw of lots and direction was given to the officer concerned to carve out site No. 204-A in I.D.H. Market after making necessary amendment in the layout plan and to do the needful in minimal time. However, since carving out a new site required amendment/modification of such scheme of I.D.H. C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -4- Market, the matter was put up before the House and the same was approved vide Resolution No. MTP-15 dated 21.7.2008. Copy of the resolution has been attached as Annexure R.3. On August 07, 2008, this Court directed Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab and Director Local Government, Punjab to expedite the process of formal approval of the resolution received from the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar so that the provisional allotment be made in favour of the petitioner which could be regularised later on. On September 29, 2008, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that pursuant to the order passed on August 07, 2008, allotment letter in respect of site bearing No. 204-A had been issued in favour of the petitioner. This fact was, however, denied by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was directed to place on record a copy of the allotment letter. Copy of letter dated 25.9.2008, whereby plot No. 204- A in I.D.H. Market had been allotted to the petitioner provisionally subject to the approval of the amendment in the layout plan by the Local Government Department, Punjab was duly placed on record by learned counsel for respondent No. 1. However, it was stated that the matter had been forwarded to the government for approval but the same had not been granted. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment so as to implead the Local C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -5- Government Department, Punjab as a party-respondent. Necessary application in that regard was also made by the petitioner which was allowed on December 15, 2008 and D.S. Bains, Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab was impleaded as respondent No. 2. Today, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents have unequivocally stated that approval has since been granted to the amendment in the layout plan by the Local Government, Department, Punjab and letter of allotment has also been issued in favour of the petitioner on 6.2.2009 regarding plot No. 204-A in I.D.H. Market. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that site No. 204-A which has been allotted to the petitioner in I.D.H. Market has been carved out from the tubewell site and, therefore, not suitable for occupation by the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that site No. 204-A,which stands allotted in favour of the petitioner was duly pointed out to both the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh before conducting draw of lots between them in respect of allotment of site No. 204. At that point of time, the petitioner never objected regarding the suitability of site No. 204-A. After having participated in the draw of lots in respect of site No. 204 in which the petitioner remained C.O.C.P. No. 502 of 2008 -6- unsuccessful, the same having fallen to the share of Kanwaljit Singh and not the petitioner, he cannot now object to the suitability or otherwise of site No. 204-A. In view of the above, it is clear that the order passed by the High Court on 18.12.2007 while disposing of the regular second appeals filed on behalf of the petitioner and Kanwaljit Singh directing respondent No. 1 to allot the sites to them stands complied with. Resultantly, the petition has been rendered infructuous and, therefore, disposed of. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 10, 2009 JUDGE satish