IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1005 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 20.05.2011 Jasbir Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Puneet Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Counsel for the petitioners states that auction was held for the plots by the Improvement Trust, Bathinda, in the Development Scheme 22.57 Acres (Bharat Nagar Scheme). The petitioners were successful bidders and were allotted shop Nos.9 and 10 respectively. They have paid the amount due for the said shops. The plot holders of shop Nos.1 to 8 who were allotted shops with measurement of 2.5 meters x 7.5 meters, as the petitioners, while constructing their shops, increased the width of their shops ranging from 5 cms. to 34 cms. Thereafter, they moved a representation to the respondents for regularization of the said area which they had exceeded while raising construction in the light of the policy of the Government dated 17.8.1998 (Annexure P-5) and the policy dated 4.12.2003. Their claims were considered and by charging 1.5 times of the original allotment price of the land, their constructions were regularized. C.W.P.No.1005 of 2008 -2- Petitioners in the light of the fact that the ambiance and the uniformity of the shops could be maintained, submitted representations dated 8.1.2007 (Annexures P-6 and P-6/1) requesting the Improvement Trust, Bathinda to consider their claims also for enhancement of the area towards the face of the shop by the same dimensions as that of holders of shops No.1 to 8. The said representations were not considered by the respondents and instead they proceeded to auction the adjacent land by carving out two further shops. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court, notice was issued leading to the response having been filed by the respondents. The fact that shop holders No.1 to 8 had exceeded the construction of the allotted area of shop and their moving the subsequent applications and regularization of the same is not in dispute. It has been stated by the respondents that the same benefit cannot be claimed by the petitioners, however, no specific reason, except that two further shops have been carved out, has been taken by the respondents. In the light of the fact that the petitioners are claiming similar benefit as has been granted to shop holders No.1 to 8, the same has not been disputed that the petitioners are similarly placed except that they have not yet built the shops. At this stage, counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the policy dated 4.12.2003 of the Government, the petitioners would also not be entitled to the said claim, but he is unable to explain that if according to this policy the petitioners are not entitled to the said benefit then how the same benefit was granted to owners of shops No.1 to 8. There cannot be different yardsticks in dealing with C.W.P.No.1005 of 2008 -3- similarly placed persons as that would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are merely seeking the same benefit as has been granted to the other eight shop holders who had also got the shops in auction like them. The petitioners cannot, thus, be treated differently. The stand of the respondent-Improvement Trust qua the petitioners is clearly discriminatory and, therefore, the petitioners have a right to claim the benefit as has been claimed by them in the present writ petition. The representations as submitted by the petitioners, therefore, deserve to be considered in the light of the benefits granted to the shop owners 1 to 8 who are similarly placed as the petitioners. Therefore, a direction is issued to the Improvement Trust, Bathinda-respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 8.1.2007 (Annexures P-6 and P-6/1) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the light of the above directions. May 20, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE