C.W.P. No.13814 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.13814 of 2011 Date of Decision.02.08.2011 Gaurav Singh s/o Satpal Mahajan, Proprietor Gupta Medicos, Shop No.7, Chowk Maqbook Pura, G.T. Road, Amritsar and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through Secretary, Urban Development and Town Planning Department, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners, who claim to be tenants of the premises under one Vijay Kumar, seek for a restraint against the action for removal of their construction sought by the Municipal Corporation at Amritsar on the ground that they have been in occupation of various constructions on the road for more than 20 years and they have not been personally served notices but served only on the landowner Vijay Kumar. The eviction notice has been ordered, setting out the reason as to why removal is imminent, that the constructions had been illegally made in the place meant for the service road and the notice also gives out the details of such service road in the area as 25.70 x 6.60 mtrs where about 11 shops have been constructed. The notice also brings out that there is a proposal for construction of service road under the elevated road and these constructions would cause obstruction to such a proposal. The C.W.P. No.13814 of 2011 -2- notice is issued under Section 246-A read with Section 269(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Section 246-A provides for a full procedure as to how any person, who is aggrieved could also protect himself. Section 269(1) states that any person aggrieved against the order of Commissioner could prefer an appeal against the said order to the Court of District Magistrate or the City Magistrate within which the property is situate or where the demolition of erection work is sought to be made. Even apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot claim any particular right to resist the removal of encroachment, the petitioners will have an appropriate remedy under the Act itself to plead their case if they are so aggrieved. There is no reason for interference in the writ petition, as sought at the instance of the writ petitioners. 2. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 02, 2011 Pankaj*