Civil Writ Petition No. 19797 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 19797 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.10.2009 Smt. Krishna …Petitioner Versus The Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. I.P. Atre, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed by Smt. Krishna who, according to counsel for the petitioner, is working as a Domestic Maid in various houses. Petitioner was living in a slum and the Chandigarh Administration, to rehabilitate the slum dwellers, enacted a Scheme called “Tenement and Sites and Services Scheme, 1979”. Under the Rehabilitation Scheme, petitioner was allotted one transit site No. 1485 in Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh with a condition, specified in the allotment letter which has been annexed as Annexure P1, that the licensee shall construct a toilet on the site within three months of the allotment and superstructure within nine months. Petitioner could not construct the superstructure and the toilet, as required. Therefore, vide Civil Writ Petition No. 19797 of 2008 2 Annexure P2, allotment/license of the transit site was cancelled and the entire amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited. Petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide order (Annexure P3). Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has now built the toilet and superstructure in accordance with the prescribed norms. This fact is not controverted by counsel for the respondents. Enactment of policy, subsequent allotment to rehabilitate slum dweller, justify assertion of petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was suffering from extreme poverty, therefore, delay has occurred in raising the construction as required by the Municipal Corporation. Matter of the fact is that now the petitioner has raised the required construction. Therefore, if order of cancellation is allowed to remain, the petitioner will suffer further as life long earnings have been spent by her in raising the construction. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is an old lady, widow and is working as a Domestic Maid, the order of cancellation (Annexure P2) affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure P3 are set aside. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 15, 2009 “DK”