CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.12.2011 1) CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M) Ludhiana Sikh Migrants Welfare Board (Regd.) ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2) CWP No. 22320 of 2011 Sukhwant Singh Baria ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. G.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 22320 of 2011. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, for applicant in CM No. 16546-47 of 2011 in CWP No. 21924 of 2011. **** SURYA KANT, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 21924 and 22320 of 2011 as the issues involved in these cases are common in nature. For sake of brevity, we extract the facts from Civil CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 2] Writ Petition No. 21924 of 2011 purported to have been filed in public interest, inter-alia, seeking quashing of the public notice dated 19.11.2011 (Annexure P-5), issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, regarding finalization of a list of 400 individuals and families who are found to be the 'lawful claimants' for allotment of LIG/MIG group houses constructed for the victims of Anti-Sikh Riots of 1984. 2. The petitioner-Ludhiana Sikh Migrants Welfare Board (Regd.) alleges that the above stated public notice is a device to regularize illegal occupancy by the occupants/dwellers at the behest of influential people and at the cost of genuine victims who are still awaiting such allotments. The petitioner-board has further averred that some of the illegal occupants have already been allotted dwelling units by the respondent-authorities and instead of shifting them to the allotted LIG/MIG houses, efforts are being made to regularize their illegal occupation over the flats in question, though, these flats are to be allotted to those riot victims who have not been granted any concessional relief so far in terms of the Government policy formulated in the year 2000. According to the petitioner-board, there were 1632 applicants who being riot victims had applied for allotment in the Ludhiana City out of whom approximately 1100 were found to be eligible. However, instead of these identified genuine riot victims those who have already availed benefits and are also illegally occupying one or the other flat, are sought to be rewarded under the impugned public notice. 3. The petitioner's prayer is opposed by one Najar Singh son CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 3] of Mull Singh, who claims to be a riot victim himself, has sought his impleadment as respondent No. 6, as according to him, the process initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana deserves to culminate into the actual allotment of flats to the identified riot- victims keeping in view the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2011 in Civil Writ Petition No. 18227 of 2010 (Manjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others). The petitioner-board on the other hand relies upon another decision of the even date passed by the same Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 260 of 2011 (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority V. Kuljit Singh and others) and other connected appeals. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 5. In our considered view, the core issue requiring urgent attention and determination at the hands of the respondent-authorities is as to who are the actual and genuine victims affected by the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots to whom Red Cards have already been issued and who have settled down at Ludhiana?. The ancillary but equally important issue would be as to how many of them have already got a dwelling unit allotted at concessional rates in accordance with the Government policy at Ludhiana?. Similarly, the authorities are obligated to find out as to how many of the alleged riot victims, notwithstanding the allotment of one or the other dwelling unit to them, are still in illegal occupation and have not yet vacated the LIG/MIG/HIG flats, constructed by the CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 4] Punjab Urban Development Authority or the Greater Ludhiana Urban Development Authority, as the case may be. 6. Likewise, there might be another group of riot victims who are, though, illegally occupying the subject flats but to whom no alternative flats at concessional rates have been allotted so far. Suffice to observe that there can be no parity amongst those illegal occupants to whom alternative flats have already been allotted and out of sheer greed they want to retain the possession of the 2nd dwelling unit vis.a.vis. those who do not have any flat to occupy in the event of their dispossession from the subject flats. The fact that there are two groups opposing each other before this Court also fortify the observations made hereinabove that all the riot victims are not similarly placed. 7. A somewhat similar controversy pertaining to regularization/allotment of LIG/MIG/HIG flats constructed by the Punjab Urban Development Authority or Greater Mohali Area Development Authority in SAS Nagar, Mohali which were alleged to be in illegal occupation of the victims of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, was considered in Civil Writ Petition No. 16345 of 2009 (Kuljit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another) decided on 14.09.2010. After taking note of the fact that the State Government in a meeting held on 23.12.2009 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister, Punjab had taken a conscious decision to regularize the illegal possession of the riot victims who were in possession of the flats in question, this Court in that case declined to issue any positive direction for regularization of the illegal occupation of the flats but CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 5] with an intent not to deprive the writ-petitioners of their rights, if any, flowing from the policy decision, the matter was disposed of with certain directions to the District Administration firstly to compile the list of identified and bona fide 'riot affected victims' to whom Red Cards had been issued and then to determine as to whether or not the writ-petitioners fell amongst the riot-affected victims. The District Administration was further directed to ascertain as to how many such identified riot victims had already availed of concessional assistance/help from the State Government. It was also directed that if any dwelling unit/booth or any other immovable property(ies) had already been allotted to a riot-affected victim on concession rates, the authorities would be well within their rights in dispossessing such beneficiary from illegally occupied flat(s) as the Government concessions cannot be claimed repeatedly. A direction to determine the type of flats to which the riot-affected victims were entitled under various government policies, was also issued. There was yet another direction that if the flats available for allotment to the 1984-Anti- Sikh Riots affected victims were inadequate to accommodate all such victims, further steps for allotment in accordance with the Government policy would be required to be taken. The directions were to be complied with in a time bound manner. 8. The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority who felt aggrieved by some of the directions contained in the afore-cited order dated 14.09.2010, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 260 of 2011 and other connected appeals which were disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.02.2011 clarifying the import of CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 6] direction No. 5 issued by one of us while sitting in the single Bench to the following effect:- “A reading of the 5th direction issued by the learned Single Judge makes it clear that if any allotment had already been made to a riot affected victim at a concessional rate and such victim is also in illegal possession of another flat, the respondent-Authorities were given the liberty of taking steps to dispossess such a person from the second flat. The purport and effect of the 5th direction issued by the learned Single Judge, therefore, is absolutely clear. If any such riot victim, who in addition to what has been allotted to him at a concessional rate, is in occupation of any other flat in an illegal manner, such riot victim will have no right to second flat and will be liable for eviction by the concerned Authorities. The question of eviction of any other riot victim apart from the category mentioned above can arise only after the exercise as directed by the learned Single Judge is completed and identification of the bona fide and genuine riot victims, who are entitled to allotment/regularization, is made by the concerned Authorities. Thereafter, if any person does not come within the scope and ambit of the expression “riot affected victim” but is found to be in illegal possession, such a person undoubtedly, at that stage and point of time, would be liable to be evicted by the appellant or any other duly empowered authority.” 9. The Division Bench on that very day also disposed of a bunch of writ petitions filed by the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Victims including Civil Writ Petition No. 18227 of 2010 (Manjit Singh and CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 7] others V. State of Punjab and others), seeking regularization of their unauthorized occupation over the government flats or allotment of such flats at Ludhiana in accordance with the Government policy. It was brought to the notice of this Court that out of 1634 applicants claiming themselves to be the riot victims, 611 applicants had been identified and their names were duly forwarded to the Greater Ludhiana Urban Development Authority (respondent No. 4). 10. The question that arose before this Court was whether the right to consideration for regularization of illegal occupation was restricted qua those applicants only who had submitted their applications pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2000 or those who had applied for regularization subsequently were also entitled for such consideration. The Division Bench took notice of the fact that in the absence of a cut off date, the said fact, by itself, may not be a disqualifying factor for consideration particularly in a situation where Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana candidly admitted in his affidavit that Red Cards were issued to the riot victims in the years 1986, 2000 and even in the year 2010. The Division Bench observed that it was possible that some of the riot victims who applied for regularization of their occupation after the year 2000, were genuine riot victims. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of with the following directions:- “As the process undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner was confined only to the applicants who had responded to the advertisement issued in the year 2000, the claim of the petitioners to be bona fide/genuine riot victims will necessarily have to be CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 8] considered and determined. Thereafter, if all the petitioners or such of them are found to be riot victims in accordance with the norms laid down in the Government policies, benefits in terms of such policy, which have already been granted to the 611 identified persons, will also have to be granted to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise should, therefore, be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner before whom such of the petitioners who are interested, may file their claim along with the supporting documents as required, which would be duly verified and thereafter from such persons, a list of eligible, bonafide and genuine riot victims will be prepared for further action.” The Bench consciously clarified that the interim order dated 15.10.2010 staying dispossession of the writ petitioners could not have the effect of legitimizing any possession after the date of the said order or to permit any claim to possession in future. 11. There can indeed be no doubt that the impugned public notice/advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana is in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court referred to above and ordinarily no interference could be called for in an endavour made by the administrative authorities to comply with the Court directions. However, keeping in view the fact that there is no unanimity amongst 1984-Anti Sikh Riot Victims who have formed rival groups, may be to seek unddue concessions over and above to what they are entitled to under the Government policy and that too at the cost of a genuine and bona fide riot victim who is still standing in a queue awaiting that illusory and elusive concession. CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 9] 12. We accordingly direct the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana as well as the Greater Ludhiana Urban Development Authority and Punjab Urban Development Authority, to follow the directions in the matter of regularization of illegal occupation and/or allotment of flats to the riot victims at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali issued vide order dated 14.09.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 16345 of 2009 (Kuljit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others) along with the clarificatory directions issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.02.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 260 of 2011 (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority V. Kuljit Singh and others) and other connected appeals. 13. It would thus be imperative upon the authorities firstly to determine as to who are the genuine and bona fide victims of 1984- Anti Sikh Riots settled at Ludhiana to whom Red Cards have been issued, irrespective of the cut off date of such Red Cards in terms of the Division Bench order dated 15.02.2011 in Civil Writ Petition No. 18227 of 2010 (Manjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others) and then to proceed as to whether or not any of such riot victims have already been allotted a dwelling unit/booth or any other immovable property(ies) on concessional rates as per the Government policy issued from time to time and if such a victim has already been adequately compensated under the Government policies, he shall have no right to seek regularization of his illegal possession of the flat at the cost of other riot victims who are still struggling hard to seek actual concession under the Government policies. CWP No. 21924 of 2011(O&M)` [ 10] 14. The exercise like (i) regularization of illegal occupation of the flats; (ii) allotment of the unallotted flats or (iii) dispossession of those who are found not entitled to regularization of illegal occupation for the reason that an immovable property at concessional rate under Government policy has already been allotted to such victims, shall be undertaken by following the procedure laid down by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 16345 of 2009 (Kuljit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another) subject to, however, the directions issued by the Division Bench vide subsequent orders dated 15.02.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 260 of 2011 (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority V. Kuljit Singh and others) and other connected appeals and Civil Writ Petition No. 18227 of 2010 (Manjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others) etc, which shall have precedence over the said Single Bench order. No further direction is called for at this stage. Disposed of. (RANJAN GOGOI) (SURYA KANT) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 13.12.2011 'ravinder'