CWP No.21688 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21688 of 2008 Date of decision : 1-12-2009 Shayam Lal .... Petitioner VERSUS The Assistant Commissioner and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. I.P. Attre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Present writ petition has been filed by Shayam Lal. He is aggrieved against the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 29.05.2001 whereby the allotment of a Transit site No.1586 of Mauli Jagran, UT, Chandigarh was cancelled and licence issued to this effect was revoked. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide Annexure P-3 and impugned order (Annexure P-2) was affirmed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not assailed this order in revision as the same was not maintainable. Qua quashing of Order (Annexures P-2 and P-3) petitioner has prayed that a writ be issued in the nature of certiorari and these orders be CWP No.21688 of 2008 -2- quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.9919 of 2008 decided on 17.11.2009 titled as Mewa Singh versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others to contend that in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the allotment was sought to be cancelled on the ground that petitioner had not constructed the tenement within the stipulated period. Petitioner is a slum dweller. The Chandigarh Administration to rehabilitate the slum dwellers who were having their jhuggies in various unauthorized slums enacted a scheme called Licence of Transit Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “Scheme 1979”). This Scheme was envisaged to rehabilitate economical weaker sections of society. As per the Scheme, petitioner had to construct one room and toilet on the transit site which was allotted to the petitioner. Failure of the petitioner to construct the building, led authorities to pass Order (Annexure P-2) whereby allotment was cancelled and licence was revoked. Order (Annexure P-2) specifically state that since petitioner failed to construct the premises, therefore, the site is resumed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was suffering from extreme poverty, therefore, he could not construct the building within the specified time. The impugned order was passed on 19.06.2001. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, CWP No.21688 of 2008 -3- petitioner had constructed the building. The appeal was filed in the year 2006. A ground was taken that a cancellation order was never served upon him therefore the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal observed as under:- “I have carefully considered the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record. There is no denying the fact that allotee miserably failed to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and the scheme by not constructing toilet and super structure within the stipulated period and there was no alternative but to cancel the allotment. Even the opportunity given by the former Chief Administrator vide his interim order dated 1.11.2007, on the request of the counsel for the appellant, was not availed and the appellant failed to apply for renewal of license after removing all the violations. The notices were issued on the last known address of the appellant and the fact that the appellant that he was not aware of the order of cancellation is not sustainable. In view of these arguments, the appeals is dismissed on merit as well as on the point of delay and impugned order is upheld. Announced. Parties be communicated.” In the certified copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Para No.3, it has been noticed as under:- “He further submitted that the appellant being poor and uneducated person could not complete the construction within the stipulated time due to lack of funds as he was working as a sweeper. The appellant has now completed the construction and, therefore, no ground exists for sustaining the cancellation order. He further submitted CWP No.21688 of 2008 -4- that the appellant being not well versed with law, could not file appeal in time. He pleaded that a fresh report may be ordered to be submitted to find the latest position regarding status of construction.” Some part of the abovesaid portion is missing in the true copy attested by the counsel for the petitioner. This court can ignore this mistake as petitioner being poor is not able to get assistance of best of legal brains. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate appearing for the Union Territory has submitted that indeed petitioner has carried the construction and has built the building but he has committed another violation and has constructed a cantilever in violation of the Building Plan. Case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the proposition of law propounded in Mewa Singh's case (supra), which held that no new ground can be introduced to resume the property. In the present case, show cause notice stated that for non-construction, site is to be resumed, but finally petitioner was non-suited on the ground that in violation of building plan he has constructed cantilever. Mr. I.P. Attre, Advocate for the petitioner has stated that cantilever will be demolished within three months from today and the building shall be brought in consonance with the Building Plan and all violations shall be cured. This court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner who is allotted a transit site being a slum dweller has spent all his life time saving to raise the building which is a one room therefore he cannot be deprived of the roof where he is living along CWP No.21688 of 2008 -5- with his family. Therefore the present writ petition is accepted subject to condition that the petitioner shall remove the cantilever within three months from today, in case, petitioner failed to do so, the Chandigarh Administration will be well within its rights to pass a fresh order of cancellation of allotment and revocation of licence. Consequently Orders (Annexure P-2 and P-3) are set aside. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 1-12-2009 JUDGE manju