IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5538 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 20, 2008 Jatinder Nath Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Administrator, HUDA-respondent No. 3 rejecting his claim for allotment of a constructed booth at Mata Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula. It has been claimed that his right to allotment flows from C.W.P. No. 5538 of 2007 order dated 28.9.2006, passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 9059 of 2006. 2. The petitioner has claimed himself to be owner of one marla structure/shop/booth in Khasra No. 49//30/10, situated in village Bhainsa Tibba, Tehsil and District Panchkula, which is in the vicinity of Mata Mansa Devi Temple Complex, Panchkula. The property of the petitioner including the land was acquired by acquisition process initiated on 2.6.1999, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 29.5.2000, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner had challenged the process of acquisition by filing C.W.P. No. 5218 of 2002 and has also prayed for allotment of an alternative site being the owner of the aforementioned structure/shop. The writ petition was eventually dismissed on 18.11.2003. The order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9565 of 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2004. However, on the request made by the petitioner that the owners of the dispossessed land holders were being given alternative land/site, liberty was granted to him to seek appropriate order from the High Court. 3. It is apposite to mention here that the issue of allotment of alternate site/plot came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Shayama Bansal v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 7972 of 2000, decided on 8.1.2002) wherein the learned Advocate General, Haryana made a statement that those persons who own residential houses will be given plots of almost similar sizes as acquired from them within the vicinity of the acquired land. However, it was further 2 C.W.P. No. 5538 of 2007 specifically stated that no tenant or commercial establishment will be accommodated and all such cases for allotment would be rejected. Such allotment was to be made on the basis of a draw of lots/size- wise (P-8). 4. The petitioner has claimed that after passing of the order dated 5.7.2004 by Hon’ble the Supreme Court he has discovered a letter dated 8.9.1998, issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, granting benefit of rehabilitation scheme to the shopkeepers at Mata Mansa Devi Temple by offering them either built up booths or kiosks on certain terms and conditions (P-9). Accordingly, he approached the respondent authorities by filing a representation dated 6.9.2004 (P- 12) to consider his claim for allotment. Then again he filed C.W.P. No. 9656 of 2005 and vide order dated 17.6.2005 one booth was ordered to be reserved for him. On 12.5.2006, the writ petition was withdrawn and another writ petition was filed, namely, C.W.P. No. 9059 of 2006, which was disposed of on 28.9.2006 with a direction to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, to re-examine the claim made by the petitioner for allotment of a site/built up booth for his rehabilitation. The petitioner thereafter filed a comprehensive representation dated 22.11.2006, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9.3.2007. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the scheme for rehabilitation was limited to those who were occupants/shopkeepers and the list of such occupants/shopkeepers was prepared. The petitioner was not found to be either occupant or a shopkeeper on the acquired land. In para 3 of the written statement filed by respondent No. 5 i.e. Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, it 3 C.W.P. No. 5538 of 2007 has been asserted that a survey was conducted and it was found that on the site belonging to the petitioner one Manohar Lal son of Shri Mukandi Lal was running a shop and he was served upon a letter dated 8.9.1998 because the scheme was for those persons who were actually running business and were not land owners. Accordingly, Shri Manohar Lal applied for allotment of a booth and was, in fact, allotted Booth No. 228, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula. 6. It is, thus, evident that there is no scheme for rehabilitation of the owner of the shop and the scheme was limited only to the occupant/shopkeeper. In the present case, Shri Manohar Lal, tenant of the petitioner was found running his business at the site at the time of survey conducted by the Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board and has accordingly been rehabilitated in Booth No. 228, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula. We find that the petitioner has no right to allotment of a shop/booth/site either under the scheme or under any general law. No such rule or policy entitling the owners to allotment of a booth or a site, has been cited before us. The writ petition is sheer misuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 20, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4