Jhuggi dweller's 25 years of legal battle pays off
The court of Additional District Judge has dismissed an appeal filed by the UT Administration against an order dated November 18, 2019, passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, directing it to allot a site to a jhuggi dweller.
Suresh Kumar, the jhuggi dweller, had filed a suit before the Civil Judge seeking directions to the Estate Office to issue an allotment letter as well as possession of a site in Sector 25, Chandigarh, which was allotted to him in a draw of lots in 2001 against his shanty in Janta Labour Colony, Sector 25, under the Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979, a rehabilitation scheme.
Kumar had stated that he along with his family had been residing in Sector 25 for several years. The Chandigarh Administration came up with the scheme for rehabilitation of jhuggi dwellers.
Since he and his family had been residing in Sector 25 for years, he applied for the allotment of a site against his jhuggi. Finding him eligible, a plinth site was allotted to him in a draw of lots. He completed all formalities required for the allotment of the plinth and the defendants (Estate Office) also prepared an allotment letter in his favour. However, the letter was not given to him despite repeated requests, nor did the defendants communicated any concrete reason for not issuing the same.
On the one hand, he was not given the plinth allotted to him, while on the other, his shanty had been removed, bringing him and his family on the road.
The Estate Office pleaded before the court that as the plaintiff was not covered under Clauses 7 and 9 of the scheme, a formal allotment letter could not be issued in his name.
However, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and directed the defendants to issue an allotment letter and hand over the possession of plinth site to him vide the judgment and decree dated November 18, 2019.
Feeling aggrieved, the Administration filed an appeal against the order. After hearing both sides, the court of Additional District Judge upheld the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal with costs.
