Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAPUR CHAND & ORS versus CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kapur Chand & Ors v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors - CWP-7628-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3291 (18 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

C.W.P.No. 7628 of 2005

Date of decision: May 22,2006

Kapur Chand and others V. Chandigarh Administration and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Advocate,for the petitioners.

Mr.K.K.Gupta,Advocate,for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

The petitioners have approached this court seeking directions to the respondents to hand over the possession of the allotted site which had been allotted in the year 1988 by removing illegal and unauthorised encroachments of the jhugies dwellers.

The facts, which emerge from the record, show that the petitioners had been allotted industrial plots in Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh in the year 1988. However, although a long period has since elapsed but the fact remains that the possession of the aforesaid allotted sites has not been handed over to the petitioners so far. In these circumstances, the petitioners have been compelled to carry on their commercial activities in the residential areas in various sectors of the city.

Due to the fact that the respondent-Administration is pressing the petitioners herein to stop aforesaid unauthorised commercial activities in the residential areas, the petitioners have approached this court through the present petition requiring the respondents to hand over the possession of the aforesaid industrial plots to the petitioners and other allottees.

The claim of the petitioners has not been seriously contested by the respondents. It has not been denied by the respondents that the sites in question had been allotted to the petitioners and some other allottees in the year 1988. However, the respondents have maintained that there are jhugies dwellers sitting on the sites which were allotted to the petitioners and even 150 shops have been unauthorisedly constructed. In these circumstances,the respondents have maintained that the possession of the said sites could not be handed over to the allottees.

After noticing the stand taken by the respondents, we are in fact surprised at their inaction. The helplessness shown by the respondents is almost pathetic. When the sites in question had been allotted in the year 1988 and the allottees had even paid the price for the said allotment, then it is not understood as to why and in what circumstances the possession of the aforesaid sites has not been handed over to the allottees. The Administration cannot be permitted to show its helplessness in handing over the actual possession of the said sites to the allottees. If there are scatters and unauthorised occupants on the said sites , then it is the bounden duty of the Administration to get the aforesaid encroachment and unauthorised construction removed and hand over the sites to the persons who are actually entitled to possess the same.

Consequently, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to get the illegal and unauthorised encroachments removed and hand over the vacant possession of the allotted sites to the allottees within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the respondents.

An action taken report in this regard shall be placed on the record of this case and the office is also directed to place the aforesaid report before the appropriate Bench.

A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.

( Viney Mittal )

Judge

May 22,2006 ( H.S.Bhalla )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.