IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19105 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 13.10.2011 Lakhwinder Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Estate Officer, Estate Office, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of an alternate site under the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme of 2006 for Jhuggi Dwellers, in lieu of the Jhuggi, in which he claims to have been residing at the relevant time, has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. The claim of the petitioner for allotment of an alternate site has been declined on the ground that on 1.1.2006, the petitioner was not in occupation of the Jhuggi in question. This finding is based on a biometric CWP No. 19105 of 2011 -2- survey, conducted by the Chandigarh Administration. In the said survey, Gurcharan Singh (respondent No.3) was found to be in possession of the said Jhuggi. It is an admitted position that said Gurcharan Singh filed claim for allotment of alternate site on the basis of his being in occupation of the Jhuggi on the relevant day, but his claim was rejected on the ground that on that day, he was not a voter and therefore, as per the Scheme of 2006, he was not entitled for allotment of alternate site. When claim of Gurcharan Singh, who was transferee of the petitioner, was rejected on 16.6.2010, the petitioner filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 12.11.2010 claiming that at the time of biometric survey conducted by the Chandigarh Administration, he was not in occupation of the Jhuggi, because he had gone to Jammu for medical treatment. This contention of the petitioner has been rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat while observing that on the relevant date, the petitioner was not in occupation of the Jhuggi, as he had already transferred the same, therefore, his claim cannot be accepted. In view of these findings, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 13, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE