IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5499 of 2006 Date of Decision: March 10, 2008 Girdhari Lal ...Petitioner Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Ashok Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. H.S. Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 5499 of 2006 and 7079 of 2007. However, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 5499 of 2006. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the Batala Improvement Trust, Batala-respondent No. 2 (for brevity, ‘the Improvement Trust’), to implement order dated 17.7.2004 (P-8), passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 1799 of 2003. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to the Improvement Trust to properly and legally rehabilitate and accommodate the petitioner by showing him the rehabilitation policy C.W.P. No. 5499 of 2006 and making such policy public. Brief facts of the case, which have led to the filing of this petition are that the Improvement Trust framed Khajuri Gate Street Scheme in 1986, which was dropped. Thereafter another scheme dated 13.5.2000 was published under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), which was known as ‘Development and Street Scheme Khajuri Gate at Batala’. It was duly published in the official gazette on 5.5.2000 (P-1). The petitioner raised objections. However, the scheme was notified under Section 42 of the Act on 4.5.2001 and notices were issued under Section 9 of the Act on 10.1.2002 (P-5). The petitioner challenged the notifications acquiring his land by filing C.W.P. No. 1799 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court on 17.7.2004 disposed of the writ petition on the basis of assurance given that a rehabilitation scheme for the petitioner would be finalized. The order dated 17.7.2004 reads thus:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner, on seeking instructions from the petitioner, states that he has been instructed to drop all the objections against the scheme framed and the acquisition process initiated by the Batala Improvement Trust, Batala, subject to the condition that the aforesaid Improvement Trust is required to formulate a rehabilitation Scheme to accommodate the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No. 2, on seeking instruction from the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Batala states that a 2 C.W.P. No. 5499 of 2006 rehabilitation scheme so as to rehabilitate the petitioner shall be finalized in the shortest possible time. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Respondent no. 2 is directed to frame a rehabilitation scheme and have the same sanctioned by the State Government, as expeditiously as possible. Till such time as the scheme is sanctioned by the State government, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from his property. The petitioner, who is present in person, undertakes to vacate the property in his possession, which is subject matter of acquisition, within two weeks from the date the sanction of the State Government to the rehabilitation scheme is forwarded to him by respondent No. 2. He shall also make an appropriate application for his accommodation in response to the rehabilitation scheme framed, within the aforesaid two weeks. Respondent No. 2 shall consider the application (if any) submitted by the petitioner for rehabilitating him, within two weeks of the submission of the aforesaid application and, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.” The grievance made by the petitioner is that the aforementioned order has not been implemented in its letter and spirit. In the short written statement filed on behalf of the 3 C.W.P. No. 5499 of 2006 Improvement Trust in the Court today, it has been asserted that as per the direction issued, rehabilitation scheme has been framed and accordingly shops have been constructed. It has further been pointed out that a date was fixed for competitive auction amongst the eligible shopkeepers within the period fixed by this Court for allotment. A civil suit has been filed at Batala in which a temporary injunction has been granted and auction has been stayed. The Improvement Trust has claimed that they have suffered considerable loss as the shops continues to be vacant. It has further been pleaded that the land owners whose land has been acquired are entitled to receive compensation whereas the oustees are under obligation to pay the price of the shops allotted to them, which is to be finalized at a restricted auction amongst the oustees. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Kuldeep Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others (C.W.P. No. 8801 of 2005, decided on 28.8.2006, Annexure R-1). The order passed by the Division Bench reads as under:- “ Mr. Bakshi, counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 states that a scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government for rehabilitation of the oustees. In pursuance of the said scheme, new shops have been constructed in the same chowk and only white-washing etc. is to be done. Learned Counsel submits that entire work would be completed very shortly and thereafter the shops would be again re-auctioned as per the directions of the State Government 4 C.W.P. No. 5499 of 2006 In view of the statement made by Mr. Bakhshi, respondent No. 2 is directed to hold a restricted auction of the shops in question within three months from today” In view of the above, it has become clear that the order passed by the Division Bench on 17.7.2004 stands fully complied with. We do not entertain any doubt that in pursuance to the aforementioned order shops have been constructed for rehabilitation of the petitioner alongwith other oustees. On account of pendency of litigation, the same could not be finalized. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has, however, submitted that he may be permitted to challenge the rehabilitation scheme. In view of the above, the writ petitions fails and the same are dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petitions shall not preclude the petitioner(s) from filing another petition by challenging the rehabilitation scheme on any available grounds. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 10, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5