C. R. No. 3306 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3306 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 18, 2010 M/s Azad Market Welfare Society .... Petitioner Vs. Union of India and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff M/s Azad Market Welfare Society, Rehri Farhi Market, Colony No. 4, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having failed to secure temporary injunction from both the courts below. The plaintiff's case is that its members are carrying on business in Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh as hawkers. The plaintiff's members requested the defendants i.e. Union of India and Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh for issuance of licensees, but in spite of assurances, the licensees were not issued. Defendants conducted survey many times and names of plaintiff's members were included in the survey, C. R. No. 3306 of 2010 2 but licensees have not been issued till today. Chandigarh Administration has allotted alternative sites or booths to many persons by floating schemes from time to time. Plaintiff's members are carrying on their business since long and therefore, they are entitled to alternative sites/booths. However, defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff's members from the sites, where they are carrying on their business on floor or hand casts. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff's members from the said sites, except in due course of law and from collecting penalty amount till issuance of licensees, during pendency of the suit. Defendants opposed the suit and application for temporary injunction. It was pleaded that plaintiff's members are encroachers upon Government land and have no right to continue to be there. The plaintiff's members have no licensees to occupy the said public land. Defendants, in exercise of statutory duties, issued challans against plaintiff's members, but after paying penalty, they again occupy the Government land. Defendants have to remove the plaintiff's members from the disputed sites encroached by them. No survey, as alleged in the plaint, was conducted by the defendants. In fact, survey had been conducted by Chandigarh Administration to identify fire victims of Rehri Market for their rehabilitation and Screening Committee screened the eligible members and booths were allotted to them. Plaintiff's members were encroachers as per C. R. No. 3306 of 2010 3 reports of Field Staff. Various other pleas were also raised. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently referred to Rehabilitation Scheme (Annexure P-3), as amended from time to time. However, this Scheme was not even pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and therefore, defendants had no opportunity to respond to the same. In addition thereto, even eligible persons under the Scheme are entitled to residential tenements in multi-storeyed flats. Under the said Scheme, squatters, carrying on business on public land by encroachment, have not been given any right to continue to do so. It is plaintiff's own case that its members have no licensees to carry on business at the disputed site. Admittedly, the disputed site is Government land. Plaintiff's members are squatters and encroachers thereon and have no right to occupy the same or to continue to occupy the same. Both the courts below have rightly declined temporary injunction to the plaintiff. There is no illegality in the impugned orders of the courts below. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein before shall be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. C. R. No. 3306 of 2010 4 May 18, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE