IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11120 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 12 .12.2011 Kuldip Chand Jain and another ...Petitioners versus The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Local Government Department, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.11463 of 1989 (O&M) Daya Ram and others ...Petitioners versus The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Local Government Department, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.11463 of 1989. None for the petitioners in CWP No.11120 of 1989. Mr. S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Both the writ petitions are connected, for, they contain the same prayer against the Municipal Corporation, for a restraint Civil Writ Petition No.11120 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - against demolishing a structure constructed in the land situate behind the shops. It is an admitted case that the petitioners are allottees of shops which belonged to the municipality, but later sold in favour of the petitioners. At the backyard of the shops, in an extent of about 5' strip of land adjoining the respective shops, permission had been originally taken by the shopkeepers for keeping their ovens to relieve themselves of the heat that they had to experience if the ovens were kept inside their shops. The vacant strip was required to be kept vacant by the municipality in view of the fact that the property itself had belonged to the Railway Administration and in a grant made to the then Municipal Committee on 31.03.1970, a specific term had been imposed that a strip of 5' of land would be left unbuilt from the new railway boundary of the Municipal Committee. Only on the basis of the representation of the shopkeepers for keeping their ovens and other small facilities, the shopkeepers had been allowed to make an opening at the respective backyards to use the strip of land. The contention of the Municipal Corporation was that contrary to the permission for use at an additional bazari fee of Rs.30, the shopkeepers had put up constructions unauthorizedly. The respondents therefore issued notices under Section 269(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1976, directing removal of the constructions. Civil Writ Petition No.11120 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - 2. I find no justification for the plea for the petitioners to resist action for removal. The action is being taken for violation of the manner of user of the property and the Corporation was justified in withdrawing the licence and seeking for removal by setting the legal process in motion. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that in respect of 5' land, the municipality itself has allowed for some construction and had permitted also a hotel building to come up for an area including the 5' strip of land. The State action ought to be fair and not discriminatory and if there are other properties which have come about in the portion specifically barring in construction in the deed of grant by the railways in favour of the Municipal Committee, it shall be only appropriate that the intended action shall be taken against all the persons, who have put up construction in the said 5'. I will not however go as far as saying that there is any scope for the applicability of Article 14 to unlawful or unauthorized acts. I cannot give direction against the persons, who are not parties before me. I would only state that in the manner of removal of construction of the petitioners in 5' strip of land, they shall commence the action in such a way that there is an even handed application of removal of all the properties and just not the properties of the petitioner only. 4. The petitioners want to contend that they have become themselves the owners of the properties including 5' of land which was reserved to be kept unoccupied and in respect of which only Civil Writ Petition No.11120 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - licence had been given to have only oven and other fire materials. At the time of removal of constructions, the municipality shall satisfy itself that no portion of the property which has been sold in favour of any of the shop owners is removed in any way. The petitioners shall always be protected in the property that was sold to them but they shall have no such privilege in respect of the property which was only a subject of licence and which licence has been withdrawn through the impugned notices for removal. The order of eviction shall be carried through, after the Municipal Corporation puts through a transparent scheme of removal of all constructions in the 5' strip of land granted to it by the Railway Administration including their own properties. 5. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 12.12.2011 sanjeev