IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4445 of 2009. Date of Decision: 20th March, 2009. Davinder Pal Singh & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. G.S.Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the directions which I propose to issue in this writ petition, there is no necessity to ask for any counter-affidavit from the respondents. The petitioners seek a direction for framing a Scheme to provide them alternative sites in terms of the orders dated 8.8.1990 and 25.3.1995 [Annexures P2 and P5] passed by this Court. The petitioners' case is that having migrated from Pakistan during partition, they were settled at Government land along Sirhind canal, where they have constructed their houses and shops. The petitioners were settled on lease-hold basis renewed till 24.3.1990 when the Government of Punjab took a decision not to further renew their lease and to get the land vacated from them. The petitioners along with others approached this Court by way of CWP Nos. 8110 of 1990 and 4640 of 1990 which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- “Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we order that the State will provide alternative sites to the petitioners and will pay compensation for the super-structure raised by them before they are evicted from the land in dispute. There can be no dispute that the object of the respondent is for a public purpose namely for widening National Highway No.10 but this can not be done at the cost of the petitioners unless they are allotted alternative plot and are paid compensation for the superstructure so that on the alternative sites allotted to them, they are able to raise constructions from the compensation paid to them”. The directions issued by this Court were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. Again in the year 1995, an effort was made to dispossess the petitioners even without paying compensation for the super- structures. Some of them, therefore, again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2891 of 1995 which was disposed of on 25.3.1995 on an undertaking given on behalf of the respondents that the persons like the petitioners “shall not be dispossessed from the premises till they are allotted alternative sites”. The petitioners' grievance is that the respondents have now again decided to demolish their structures for the purpose of widening of National Highway, even when no alternative sites have been allotted to them as directed by this Court. The petitioners have already represented to the National Highway Authorities as well as the State of Punjab but no action has been taken in the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the relief sought in this writ petition as well as the directions already issued by this Court which have attained finality, I am of the considered view that the inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in not settling the claim of the petitioners for allotment of alternative sites, is wholly unfair and unwarranted. While there is nothing per-se illegal in asking the petitioners to vacate the site for widening of the National Highway in public interest, their claim for allotment of alternative sites, as directed by this Court, has to be settled and implemented with the same priority. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for allotment of alternative sites forthwith and in any case not more than four months from today, in terms of the orders dated 8.8.1990 and 25.3.1995 and do the needful as may be required in law. Disposed of. March 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE