CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15533 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 09 ,2011 Dhirju .....Petitioner VERSUS The Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. I. P. Atre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This is a case of another poor person, who has come to challenge the order passed by Chandigarh Administration, cancelling his allotment of transit site No.1339, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh. A similar case came up before this Court titled Shiv Charan Vs. Chief Administrator and others (Civil Writ Petition No.16 of 2009), which was decided on 7.4.2011. It would defy logic as to why these poor daily wager or rickshaw pullers are being put to trouble for reasons, which primarily would relate to their poor CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15533 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: conditions. The reasons for which the cancellation of the tenement has followed is that the petitioner had failed to raise the construction within the stipulated period. While acting in such like cases, no consideration is given to the poverty and poor economic conditions of such persons, which primarily is the reason for the non-construction. The paucity of resources and money need to be given due consideration in such like cases and can not be completely ignored. Such poor persons can hardly save any amount or have any surplus for raising construction in time. The Building Inspectors would visit the site during their routine regular inspection and would report violations. This is what has happened in the case of petitioner also and allotment in his favour was cancelled on 6.8.2001 on the ground that he had failed to raise construction within the cut off date. The petitioner, however, subsequently raised the construction and presently is living in the house. Ignoring such considerations, the Appellate Authority, dismissed his appeal being time barred. The technicalities only have out-weighed the other considerations, which may be equally important. Having, thus, failed before all such Forums, the petitioner approached this Court. At the time of issuing notice of motion, the counsel had undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that he shall not sell this property for the next 20 years. While issuing notice, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo. In the reply, it is conceded that the petitioner has raised the construction after the stipulated period. It is stated that there are CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15533 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: gross violations in the construction and a cantilever has been constructed. The petitioner statedly has now removed the same. In the case of Shiv Charan (supra), the Court had made certain observations, which would be equally relevant in the present case as well. The Court had observed as under:- “The attitude adopted by the respondents cannot be appreciated. The condition of the petitioner and the allotment of this site has already been noticed. Is it that the poor persons have to suffer the wrath of powerful administration? The observation made by the court to consider the plight of poor person has gone unheeded. The reason for cancellation of site is that the petitioner had not carried out construction within the stipulated period. His economic condition in this case as pleaded can not be completely ignored. This perhaps would explain the delay. Still the respondents are being harsh and unfair. Once the violation is removed, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered accordingly. No cause is made out to adjourn the case as respondents cannot be expected to show any consideration for poor persons. Since the petitioner has now completed the construction, no cause would remain to resume the site.” In the present case also, the petitioner has completed the construction. He has also handed over a photograph today to show that the cantilever has been removed. The cancellation order can not be sustained and is set-aside. It is hoped that the respondents CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15533 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: would show some consideration to such poor people. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. May 09,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE