CWP No.16583 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16583 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.11.2010 **** Mandeep Parbhakar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. ML Saggar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. AS Grewal, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a Civil Engineer who claims to have been allotted Chamber No.51 in the Mini Secretariat Complex at Ludhiana though the said allotment is seriously disputed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. CWP No.16583 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). It appears that the Grandfather of the petitioner late Sh. Haqikat Rai Prabhakar used to work in Cabin No.186 in the Old Court Complex as Draftsmen, Building Expert, Surveyor etc. The petitioner, who is a qualified Engineer, is also statedly rendering the same professional services. (3). The record does reveal that the chamber in dispute was in possession of the petitioner who has been working in the same. The District Administration, however, denies any allotment in favour of the petitioner though Chambers No.50 & 52 are allotted to the petitioner’s father and uncle, respectively who are working as Deed Writers. The District Administration has now sealed Chamber No.51 to prevent the petitioner from working therefrom and it has been further allotted to respondent No.3. (4). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that this Court need not go into the question of validity of the alleged allotment of Chamber No.51 at this stage. Suffice it to observe that the material on record fully substantiates the petitioner’s plea that Chamber No.51 was occupied CWP No.16583 of 2009.doc - 3 – by him. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant, it was still imperative upon the District Administration to dispossess him by following the due procedure as may be prescribed in law, namely, under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1974. (6). Admittedly, no such procedure has been followed in the present case. (7). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to remove the seal and allow the petitioner to retain possession of the Chamber till he is dispossessed in accordance with law. (8). The petitioner shall be at liberty to represent for the allotment of the said chamber/site to him as per the policy and if any such representation is made by him, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the same before initiating the process of eviction. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 29.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE