Sh. Raj Kumar vs Union Territory and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Petitioner is a slum dweller. Chandigarh Administration formulated a Rehabilitation Scheme in the year 1975.

According to the Scheme, those slum dwellers who were having their Jhuggies/Huts were to be allotted a tenement in Mauli Jagran. The Scheme

envisaged that the Slum Dwellers has to construct one room, kitchen, bathroom and a toilet. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh on 30.4.2002

passed an order that it came to their notice during the survey conducted that petitioner as a licensee has constructed un-authorised cantilever of

10'' x 10'' x 3'' in contravention of approved building plan. This according to the Municipal Corporation amounted to breach of terms and

conditions of allotment and provisions of the Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Service Scheme, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the

Scheme''). In view of this, vide order Annexure P2, allotment was cancelled and license was revoked. Aggrieved against this, petitioner had filed

an appeal. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and granted time to the petitioner to remove the violations.

Case of the petitioner is that he had removed the violations but the concerned Inspector had acted with a bias and submitted a wrong report. To

justify this, petitioner has relied upon letter dated 26.9.2005, Annexure P4 written to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and letter dated

7.10.2005, Annexure P5 addressed to the S.D.M., Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh saying that photographs of the premises were attached

and it was stated that cantilever has been removed. The Estate Officer who was carrying on proceedings u/s 5 of the Public Premises Act, without

taking into consideration submissions made by the petitioner, ordered eviction of the petitioner and had not noticed the argument raised by the

petitioner that violation has been cured and cantilever has been removed. Counsel for the petitioner contend that before the Appellate Authority a

miscellaneous application was filed and petitioner stated therein that he has removed the cantilever and even otherwise also he is willing to comply

with the inspection note if an opportunity is granted to him. That miscellaneous application was also dismissed holding that it will amount to review.

The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyabir Singh v. U.T. Of Chandigarh and

Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 1604 of 2003, decided on 17.2.2006.

This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that petitioner is a slum dweller. He is a daily wage labourer, employed on day to day basis by

the construction contractors. Therefore, he is not in a position to understand intricacies of various legal provisions. One miscellaneous application

submitted by him that he be permitted to comply with orders of the Appellate Authority cannot be construed against him to say that he had not

demolished the construction. Petitioner has been approaching various authorities stating that he has already removed the cantilever. I have seen the

photographs. The wall of the house has been built by the bricks gathered from here and there, therefore, the petitioner who is visited by extreme

poverty cannot be denied a roof over his head.

For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The possession of the premises be

restored to the petitioner within three months. Thereafter again an inspection be carried, as the petitioner has submitted before this Court that no

violation is existing. In case any violation is existing, the petitioner will be informed and he shall remove the same within three months from the day

the possession is delivered to him.