High CourtsDivision Bench(2001) 04 P&H CK 0084

Sunder Lata vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 April 2001 · Citation: (2002) 3 RCR(Civil) 602

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Sud, J · Jawahar Lal Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 15950 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 353 words

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated October 8, 1999 by which the movable structure placed by her on the footpath at the Railway Station, Ludhiana, has been ordered to be removed. The petitioner alleges that she is a licensee. She is paying rent. Thus, the respondents are not entitled to remove her from the site.

2.

The claim is contested by the respondents. In the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner is a trespasser. Photograph at Annexure R.1 has been produced to show that on account of the structure etc. put by the petitioner, the paving of the footpath had become impossible. The traffic was being obstructed. Thus, the orders for removal of the temporary structure were passed.

3.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

4.

Ms. Ritu Punj contends that the petitioner is a licensee and is paying rent. The claim has been controverted by Mr. Puneet Jindal, counsel for the respondents.

5.

Nothing has been produced on record to show that the petitioner was ever given a licence to run a Snack-bar or anything at the site. The action is in conformity with the provisions of Section 5-A(3) which authorises the removal of movable structure etc. under the orders of the Estate Officer. The order has been passed by the competent authority. It is in conformity with the provisions of Section 5-A(3). The order is not arbitrary. Consequently, it calls for no interference.

6.

Ms. Punj contends that on September 4, 1985, the petitioners'' husband had been given a notice. In this notice, it was acknowledged that the petitioner was a licensee.

7.

We have perused this notice. This communication was addressed to Mr. Rajinder Pal Bhatia. The licence had been terminated with the service of the notice on September 4, 1985. Thereafter, no licence was granted. In any case, nothing has been produced to show that the petitioner is a licensee.

8.

No other point has been raised.

9.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dis missed. No costs.

Sd/- N.K. Sud, J.