Find a Lawyer

Punjab Development of Cities Act (I of 1976)‑‑

‑‑‑S .13=‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) Art . 9‑‑Occupant of Katchi Abadi, Development Scheme‑‑Petitioners, occupants of Katchi Abadi, applying to Local Development Authority for allotment of plots in their possession‑‑Authority bringing plots under Scheme and allotting same to other persons petitioners contending that rights claimed by them in their applications should be determined by Development Authority before proceeding with their dispossession, held, legitimate‑‑High Court authority to dispose of petitioners' applications expeditiously and in case site applied for by, an applicant not allotted to them they should not be dispossessed without notice.

Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioners.

This order shall dispose of writ petitions bearing Nos. 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456 and 457, all of 1984. as similar questions of law and facts have been urged therein. It shall, however, remain on the file of Writ Petition No. 451 of 1984.

2. Each of the petitioners claims to be in possession of a site in the Katchi Abadi included in block No. 7 of the Development Scheme known as Scheme No. 212, Phase‑III. It is asserted that the respective sites in their possession were developed by the petitioners and constructions raised thereat.

3. Earlier in Writ Petitions Nos. 2508/83 and 2714 to 2719 of 1983, brought by the petitioners, the counsel for the F.D.A: and the Assistant Director, Estate Management entered .appearance and it was disclosed that to accommodate the persons affected by the Scheme, a survey was got made by the Authority with a view that those who were found in possession on 1‑1‑1978, would be given a choice either to have a built‑up quarter or a plot of land, so far as possible close to the plot occupied by each of such occupants. It was also stated at the bar, that an inquiry would be made in each individual case to, find out the names of those persons, who had been erroneously omitted from the list of the surveyed‑persons prepared previously. The submission, thus, was that the genuine occupants unearthed, as a result of such inquiry, in the matter of allotment, would be given the same benefits as extended to the surveyed‑persons. In view of the facts obtaining on the record, the aforestated writ petitions were disposed of by order, dated 6‑11‑1983, with the observations that the ... ... ... .._ ... ... ... the authority that their names were wrongly missed during first survey and in case they succeeded in establishing their status they would be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Development Scheme.

4. The grievance voiced by the petitioners through these writ petitions is that they applied to the Authority to*allot in their names the plots in their respective possession, but their applications have been kept pending and the sites allotted to other persons. It is contended that without taking any decision on these applications and without serving them with any notice, they are intended to be dispossessed and structure raised by them demolished. In this connection the petitioners' learned counsel has drawn my attention to section 39 of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976 to contend that even if the petitioners are considered to be unauthorised occupants they are entitled to notice, before commencing any punitive action against them. Accordingly in these writ petitions the allotments said to have been made to other persons have been challenged and it is prayed that the direction given by the authority to demolish the construction at the site, and its failure to allot to each petitioner the plot of the land in his possession or plot close to such site, be declared as being without any lawful authority.

4. From, the perusal of the available record, I find that by the decision, dated 6‑11‑1983, the controversy between the parties stands exceedingly clinched. I further feel, if the petitioners have applied to the Authority for allotment, their. demand that the rights claimed by them under the applications should be determined before proceeding with their dispossession, is quite legitimate.

It is, therefore, directed that in case the petitioners' application have not been decided so far, these shall be disposed of expeditiously and in case the site applied for, by an applicant is not allotted to him he shall not be dispossessed without notice.

With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. This order has been made subject to all just exceptions.

M . Y . H . Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.