CWP No.4281 of 1987(O&M) and connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.4281 of 1987(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.09.2011 Gulam Nabi son of Zaidula Qureshi, House No.1024, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh and others ... Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (2) CWP No.7461 of 1987(O&M) Jagat Ram son of Chunu Ram, Quarter No.1006, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh ... Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (3) CWP No.10603 of 1989(O&M) Wali Mohamad son o Ghulam Qadir Mir, resident of House No.1031, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh and others ... Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (4) CWP No.1339 of 1989(O&M) Mohd. Akram Khan son of G.M. Khan, resident of House No.1005, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh and others ... Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CWP No.4281 of 1987(O&M) and connected cases [2] (5) CWP No.11979 of 1991(O&M) Sat Pal son of Sita Ram, resident of House No.1046, Sector 29, Chandigarh ... Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (6) CWP No.13853 of 1991(O&M) Ved Parkash son of Sh. Dhup Singh, resident of Village Bedwa, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak ... Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos.1339 of 1989 & 11979 of 1991. None for the respondents. ***** 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. In all these petitions, the petitioners are migrants from the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who due to hostile conditions had to flee from their respective homes and settled down in adjoining States including Chandigarh. There have been various policies and schemes framed by the Chandigarh Administration to accommodate them and to rehabilitate them by offering commercial kiosks and residential accommodation. At the time when the writ petitions were filed, the Court had protected the continuation of possession and that they shall CWP No.4281 of 1987(O&M) and connected cases [3] not be evicted without initiating appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law. The interim order shall be the guide for final disposal as well for possession. If it is continuous, it shall be treated as nine points in law and any possession, which is settled, shall be protected till an eviction is made by recourse to the appropriate provisions of law. The petitioners will have such a benefit and the Chandigarh Administration will be at liberty to consider the application for any beneficial scheme under which they could be rehabilitated and allowed to continue or settle them in appropriate places by offering reasonable and acceptable accommodation. Any action for eviction shall be done only by resort to legal provisions for eviction and no force shall be used without reference to the appropriate orders secured through a legal process. 2. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE