IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1441 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2009 Union Territory of Chandigarh. -----Appellant Vs. Agya ram & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, directing earmarking of booth sites for allotment to Kashmiri migrants after including them in the list of eligible Kashmiri migrants. 2. The respondents are Kashmiri migrants who were forced to leave Kashmir on account of disturbed conditions. The Chandigarh Administration in pursuance of policy decision of the Central Government took steps to rehabilitate the migrants by making a provision in “Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh, Rules, 1991” framed under Section 22 of the Capital of Punjab LPA No.1441 of 2009 [Development and Regulation] Act, 1952. The said rules contemplate allotment of built up booths in a market. The respondents applied for allotment but their applications were rejected vide letter dated 24.1.2002 on the ground that they were not eligible. Against the said order, writ petition was filed in this Court. During pendency of the writ petition, verification report of the Tehsildar dated 11.9.2008 was filed in support of genuineness of the respondents as migrants. The respondents were accordingly held to be eligible for consideration. A direction has been issued, quashing letter dated 24.1.2002 and directing inclusion of the writ petitioners in the list of eligible migrants and for consideration of their claim for allotment of booths. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that genuineness of the respondents being migrants having been verified, the impugned letter dated 24.1.2002 was liable to be quashed and the respondents were entitled to be considered as per Government policy. His only objection is that under the policy, only one person from the family could be considered and the allotment was to be made by draw of lots without earmarking of any booth and to that extent the direction of learned Single Judge was without considering the rules. 5. We find that the direction of learned Single Judge in substance is to consider the claim of the respondents in accordance with the policy and rules and if only one member of 2 LPA No.1441 of 2009 the family is to be considered and allotment is to be made by draw of lots, the same can be done in accordance with law. With this clarification, the order of learned Single Judge is upheld. 6. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 22, 2009 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3