CWP No.1549 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1549 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.10.2008 The Mazdoor Sudhar Samiti, Guru Nanak Colony Phase X, Ward No.20, Mohali. Distt.Mohali .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH **** Present : Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Dhillon, AAG, Punjab, for respondent no.1. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.11.2006, passed by respondent no.2, denying allotment of alternate sites to 89 families, who are members of the Mazdoor Sudhar Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the `petitioner-samiti'). The petitioner-samiti alleges that 200-300 families belonging to weaker sections, who are primarily engaged as labourers at Chandigarh and Mohali were residing in small hutments in Phase VI, Mohali. The respondents offered that in case the members of the petitioner-samiti vacated this land, alternate sites would be earmarked for them. The respondents, thereafter, claim to have conducted a survey and sites were CWP No.1549 of 2007 2 allotted to 89 families. As members of the petitioner-samiti were ignored, they filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide their representations. The Estate Officer, GAMADA, Mohali, rejected their representations vide impugned order dated 21.11.2006. It is submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking, does not deal with each case separately and is devoid of any cogent reasons. The petitioners have unimpeachable evidence that they were in possession. However, without considering their individual claims their request has been declined. Counsel for the respondents submits that a survey was conducted and all those in possession of land have been earmarked alternative sites. The petitioner's claim was considered and as it was found to be baseless it was rejected. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. We express our dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Estate Officer, GAMADA, Mohali, has decided the petitioner-samiti's claim. The Estate Officer was required to consider individual claims by taking into consideration material put forth by each claimant. However, without calling upon the claimants to produce material to establish their possession, their claims were dismissed by a common order. Faced with the aforementioned situation, counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the Estate Officer would reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in this regard, after considering the case of each individual separately. In view of what has been stated herein above and more particularly, the statement made by counsel for respondent no.2, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.11.2006 is set aside. The matter is CWP No.1549 of 2007 3 remitted to the Estate Officer, GAMADA, Mohali, to decide the application filed by the members of the petitioner-samiti, afresh and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Estate Officer shall decide the case of each individual separately and shall pass a separate order, accepting or rejecting the claim. The petitioner-samiti and or its members would be at liberty to file fresh applications duly supported by relevant material within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Estate Officer shall decide the applications within a period of three months thereafter. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE 16.10.2008 ( JORA SINGH ) GS JUDGE