CWP No.23404 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.23404 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2011 **** Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh . . . . Petitioner VS. Ram Kumar & Anr. . . . . 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: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-Administration seeks quashing of the order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure P7) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), UT Chandigarh, whereby an application moved by the first respondent for directing the petitioner-Administration to re-construct the missing file and allot an alternative site in lieu of the jhuggi earlier occupied by him, has been accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat – respondent No.2. (2). While considering the application moved by respondent No.1, the Permanent Lok Adalat has taken note of the fact that the said respondent was found eligible by the CWP No.23404 of 2010.doc - 2 – Authorities of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment of alternative site in accordance with the provisions of “Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979” (in short, ‘the 1979 Scheme’). Respondents No.1 and three other eligible short-listed applicants were not allotted the alternative site merely because their files were got misplaced. (3). In addition, the petitioner-Administration took the objections that respondent No.1 did not appear before the concerned Authority; the jhuggi number as well as the name of his father are at variance inasmuch as in some of the papers his father’s name is Josh Pal with Jhuggi No.3002 whereas in the other affidavit his father’s name is recorded as Jag Pal with Jhuggi No.1688. All the objections, however, have been turned down by the Permanent Lok Adalat after observing as follows:- “Now we take up the individual objections taken against the applicants. As regard Ram Kumar, it is pointed out that against jhuggi No.1688 the names of the five persons stood recorded in the voter list. But this fact pales into insignificance because against that jhuggi, only Ram Kumar applied and he was successful in the draw of lots and plinth site No.2400 was allocated to him. It is not pleaded up by the respondent that anyone of other four persons, so written in the list, ever applied for alternate site, CWP No.23404 of 2010.doc - 3 – or were allocated such sites. Till date these remain unallotted to any other person. In these circumstances, the respondent can refuse the allotment of site No.2400 to the applicant Ram Kumar. Another plea taken against Ram Kumar is that is variation in the name of his father and the jhuggi no. In some papers the name of the applicant’s father is written as Joshpal and jhuggi No. is 3002. The applicant has of jhuggi is 1688. The affidavit has not been controverted by the respondent. The applicant is illiterate person. He has got corrected his father’s name in the record of the Election Commissioner and Voter I-card issued to him. In this view of the matter, these objections do not help the respondent to refuse the alternate site to Ram Kumar.” (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the original records produced in Court. (5). In my considered view no case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is made out. (6). I say so for the reason that on verification of his claim and after spot inspection, respondent No.1 was declared eligible by the authorities of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment of an alternate site in lieu of his jhuggi. It is also apparent that respondent No.1 and some other eligible applicants were not allotted the CWP No.23404 of 2010.doc - 4 – alternate site as their files were untraceable. It appears that the Chandigarh Administration kept on raising one or the other objection to deprive the first respondent, who belongs to the poorest strata of society, from the benefit of a ‘welfare policy’ inasmuch as one of the plea taken by the Administration was that “the 1979 Scheme” has been repealed. (7). Yet another objection raised is that the jhuggi number and the father’s name of respondent No.1 are inconsistent to his previous version. (8). The Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be right in observing that a typographical mistake like this, especially in the case of an illiterate person cannot be viewed seriously as it does not materially affect the claim of the first respondent. (9). That apart, the petitioner-Administration has also failed to explain the delay in approaching this Court as the impugned Award was passed by the Lok Adalat in the year 2008. (10). In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (11). Dasti . 21.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge CWP No.23404 of 2010.doc - 5 –