HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.718 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2011 **** Balbir Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P13) whereby the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 14.09.2001 (Annexure P6) issued in favour of the petitioner and her deceased husband for allotment of a commercial booth measuring 8’ x 12’ subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, has been cancelled on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee on verification of the record has found that she along with her husband were only tenant(s) in the shop in village Lambian, Tehsil and District Mohali and not its owners. CWP No.718 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The case of the petitioner’s husband (late Jaspal Singh) was that he was owner-in-possession of a shop measuring 16’ x 24’ sq.ft. in Village Lambian in which he used to run his business in the name and style of “Friends Welding Works” since the year 1983. He relied upon the electricity bills from the year 1984 onwards; the Bank accounts operating since 1990 in the name of the firm as well as the Income tax returns and the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department in support of his claim. The respondents on consideration of these documents accepted the petitioner’s husband to be the owner-in-possession of the shop measuring 16’ x 24’ sq. ft. in village Lambian and as per the Government Policy, allotted him along with his wife (the petitioner) a commercial booth measuring 8’ x 12’ vide Letter of Intent dated 14.09.2001 (Annexure P6) in lieu thereof. (3). The above stated LOI has now been cancelled vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P13) on the premise that the Scrutiny Committee did not find the petitioner or her deceased husband to be the owners-in- possession of the shop. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner lost her husband in a fatal road accident on 15.09.2000 while he was traveling in a car bearing registration No.PB-65-A-3890. The Motor Accident Claims 2 CWP No.718 of 2009.doc - 3 – Tribunal, Rupnagar vide its Award dated 15.09.2003 (Annexure P10) held that the deceased husband of the petitioner used to run the business of welding works in the name and style of “M/s. Friends Welding Works” and was also an income tax payee. (4). The respondents in their counter-reply/affidavit have maintained that the petitioner and/or her deceased husband have failed to prove their ownership as the documents relied upon by them do not conclusively establish their title qua the shop in question in village Lambian. It is also averred that as per the Government policy, the alternative booth can be allotted only to a owner of the property and/or permanent resident of the village Lambian and the petitioner or her deceased husband, fulfilled none of these eligibility conditions. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In my considered view the impugned order cancelling the LOI cannot sustain for more than one reasons. Firstly, the reply/affidavit filed by the respondents is conspicuously silent regarding the ownership/title of the shop measuring 16 x 24 sq.feet which is admittedly still in existence in village Lambian and is in possession of the petitioner/her family. It is not the case of the respondents that anyone else has come 3 CWP No.718 of 2009.doc - 4 – forward to seek allotment of an alternative site on the basis of the ownership of the said shop. Secondly, the petitioner’s husband was found running the business of welding works in the shop in question during the Survey conducted in the year 2000 and various official documents maintained in the ordinary course of official duties also suggest his ownership qua the shop. These documents were accepted by the respondents as sufficient proof of ownership, therefore, it is too late for them to take a somersault and allege otherwise. Thirdly, the petitioner and her family appears to be the ‘permanent residents’ of village Lambian. For the purposes of the Government policy on allotment of alternative sites, it is a matter of record that the only source of livelihood of the petitioner’s family was/is the shop in question. The fact that the husband of the petitioner started running his business in village Lambian in the year 1983 is not in dispute. He was, thus, an ‘ordinary resident’ of the village for all intents and purposes. The fact that the deceased started residing in H.No.HL-370, Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali to provide better education etc. to his children does not mean that the husband of the petitioner disqualified in terms of the policy for the rehabilitation of the locally displaced persons. The nucleus of his stay in village Lambian was 4 CWP No.718 of 2009.doc - 5 – the solitary source of livelihood, namely, the shop in question which he continued to run and is still being run by the petitioner and her son. Suffice it to observe that any person who on account of his residence, avocation, business etc. has made the village as his permanent abode would ordinarily be taken as the ‘permanent resident’ of the village as the expression ‘permanent resident’ cannot be restrictive qua the lineal descendants of the ancestors only who had originally established the village. (6). The impugned order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P13) cannot be sustained for one more reason as it mechanically mentions the petitioner and/or her deceased husband to be the ‘tenant’ in the village. The ‘tenancy’ essentially implies the relationship of ‘landlord and tenant’ and such a relationship cannot exist unless there is a ‘landlord’. As has been noticed earlier also, the respondents have nowhere disclosed the real ‘owner’ of the shop in question nor such a claim has been lodged by anyone. The petitioner or her husband cannot be declared tenant(s) in their own shop. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure P13) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to issue the allotment letter to the petitioner and give the 5 CWP No.718 of 2009.doc - 6 – possession of the booth to the petitioner, if it is ready, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order though subject to the other terms and conditions of allotment. (8). It is made clear that the petitioner’s dispossession from the present shop shall remain stayed till the possession of the alternative commercial booth is handed over to her. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 03.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 6