File affidavit on rehabilitating jhuggi dwellers: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 25

Displaying the humanitarian side of law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Union of India to file an affidavit on the issue of rehabilitating dwellers compelled to live in jhuggis after observing that they too were citizens of this country and had a right to life.

“The respondent-Union of India will file an affidavit through a competent officer giving a via media for rehabilitating such people, who out of necessity have to occupy jhuggis on land which obviously does not belong to them, but nevertheless are citizens of this country and have a right to life in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra asserted.

The Bench was hearing a petition filed against the Union of India and other respondents by Rajinder Kumar and other petitioners through senior advocate ML Saggar with counsel GP Vashist. The UT Administration was represented by senior standing counsel Anil Mehta with additional standing counsel Sumeet Jain.

The petitioners were seeking the quashing of orders, dated May 14, as per a public notice affixed in their residential area by the respondents to demolish their houses allegedly in an illegal and unlawful manner. Responding to a query whether the petitioners’ case was considered in terms of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana -2015, counsel for the respondent-UT submitted that one of the “verticals” of the scheme was that persons wanting to avail of the benefit could apply for a subsidiary to the extent of 25 per cent of the consideration for houses/dwelling units they wished to purchase.

He added that the petitioners had not done that. The other three “verticals” provided in the scheme had not been adopted for the UT looking at its size. Referring to the impugned public notice, he submitted that the petitioners could file objections in terms of Section 12(2) of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, and the same would be heard.The Bench added that a perusal of the public notice showed that the said provision had not even been invoked, far less giving any time to the petitioners to file objections in terms thereof. “In view of the fact that no proper notice under Section 12(2) of the aforesaid Act has been issued, no demolition shall be carried out till the next date of hearing,” the Bench added, while fixing the case for October 28.