IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7147 of 2008. Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2009. Gurcharan Singh Petitioner through Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate Versus PUDA & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate. 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) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 31.3.2008 [Annexure P-14] passed by the PUDA authorities whereby he has been asked to vacate House No. 898-A, MiG, Housing Board Colony, Ajnala Road, Amritsar. The petitioner and his brother were owners in possession of their ancestral house No. 1111/IV-26 situated at Gali Bagh Wali, back side of Sarai Guru Ram Dass at Amritsar. Their property was compulsorly acquired by the State Government under the Golden Temple Beautification Scheme, known as “Galiara Scheme”. The petitioner's case is that besides compensation for the acquired property, the Government also promised to rehabilitate the oustees by allotting them MIG houses on payment of the price to be determined by the Punjab Housing Board. The petitioner claims to have been allotted the subject flat in terms of the said Scheme and he is stated to have deposited 33% of the flat price, i.e., Rs.27,200/- to the Punjab Housing Board on 24.6.1988. The petitioner was given possession and is living in the said flat since then, though without any formal allotment letter. Since the petitioner's brother constituted a separate unit, a flat is reported to have been allotted to him as well. The petitioner's further case is that allotment of the MIG flat was to be regularized by the PUDA on the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar regarding eligibility of the oustees. It appears from one of the letter dated 13.10.1999 [Annexure R-3] addressed by the Estate Officer, PUDA to the Superintending Engineer, Golden Temple Project, that the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar vide his letter dated 5.10.1999 had recommended the case of the petitioner, though apparently there was some vagueness in those recommendations. The PUDA authorities have, therefore, not regularized the petitioner's allotment for want of clear and categoric recommendations from the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. Thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Town Planning and Development Act and the impugned orders have been passed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents NO. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the ancestral property owned by the petitioner and his brother was compulsorily acquired under the Scheme. It also appears that there was some assurance that the oustees would be allotted MIG houses. The only question which is apparently under dispute is as to whether or not the petitioner, as a separate 'family unit' along with his wife and children, was entitled for allotment of a MIG house. As noticed earlier, the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, at one point of time, did recommend allotment of the flat in favour of the petitioner, though, according to the respondents, the recommendations were not clear and categoric. In these circumstances, the real cause of uncertainty lies in the in-action of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, who was obligated to examine the petitioner's claim in terms of the policy for rehabilitation of the oustees and determine his eligibility for allotment of the flat. At this stage, it may be noticed that the petitioner has taken a categoric stand that no other flat [except the flat in question] has been allotted to him under the aforesaid Scheme. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar to examine the petitioner's eligibility under the aforesaid Scheme and make appropriate recommendations to the PUDA authorities. In case the petitioner is found eligible by the Deputy Commissioner, the PUDA authorities shall regularize the allotment of the flat in question, subject to payment of balance allotment price, if any, along with interest, as may be permissible under the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar shall do the needful within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied to him and the PUDA authorities, on their turn, shall thereafter take further decision in the matter within two months. Till the matter is decided by the authorities, status-quo with regard to possession over the flat in question shall be maintained. Disposed of. February 3, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE