The petitioner has acquired a right to be allotted an alternative place, and the plea as to non-availability of space may not be now available to Respondent No. 3, in view of the fact that said respondent has now proposed to allot two shops by auction and one out of them being the same shop for which petitioner had been requesting.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:

“It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping view the facts and circumstances of the case & in view of the submissions made here in above the present petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may please be directed to implement annexure P-6, with a further prayer to direct the respondent No. 3 to rehabilitate the petitioner to some other vacant place where in the land owned and possessed by respondent No. 3 or they may please be directed to consider the case of petitioner for allotment of shop in the complex which has been constructed by respondent No. 3 near Gate-I at Jawalaji, which is lying vacant, with the further prayer to provide electricity and water connection, as has been done in the cases of other similarly situated persons, named above, in order to do justice to the petitioner, so that he can earn his livelihood with dignity and honour and he can provide bread and butter to his family.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 is the successor of erstwhile Nagar Panchayat, Jawalamukhi. Petitioner was allotted a plot of land on Kangra road at Jawalamukhi by Nagar Panchayat. The rent was fixed at Rs. 150/- per month and petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as security. Petitioner complied with all the terms and conditions of allotment. A formal agreement was executed between the petitioner and executive officer of Nagar Panchayat, Jawalamukhi on 28.10.2005. Petitioner occupied the allotted land and commenced his small business. It was, however, found that the land allotted to petitioner was within the controlled width of National Highway. Petitioner again applied to the Nagar Panchayat to adjust him at alternative place. Resolution dated 19.06.2010 (Annexure P-6) was passed by Nagar Panchayat accepting the request of petitioner to adjust him at alternative place. The reason assigned for such decision was that according to the report of SDO, National Highway, the land allotted to petitioner was in controlled width of the National Highway.

3. Petitioner is still occupying the land allotted to him initially and the resolution of Nagar Panchayat dated 19.06.2010 (Annexure P-6) for adjusting him at alternative place has remained unimplemented.

4. Petitioner contends that the livelihood of his entire family is dependent on the small business being conducted by him on the land allotted by the then Nagar Panchayat. Since, the allotted land was found to be in controlled width of National Highway, his entire livelihood was put at stake. He had applied to Nagar Panchayat to be adjusted at alternative place only when objection regarding his occupation on the controlled width of National Highway was raised. Nagar Panchayat had promised to adjust the petitioner by way of resolution dated 19.06.2010. He kept on representing to the Nagar Panchayat and then to respondent No. 3 for implementation of resolution dated 19.06.2010, but to no avail. According to petitioner, he had requested for allotting him a shop lying vacant in the shopping complex of respondent No. 3 near gate No. 1 of Jawalaji temple, but the request of petitioner was not accepted. Petitioner is stated to be under constant fear of being uprooted from the land initially allotted to him. In such event, petitioner is likely to lose his only source of income causing serious peril to the existence of his entire family.

5. Respondent No. 3 has contested the claim of the petitioner. It is not denied by respondent No. 3 that the land initially allotted to petitioner was found to be in controlled width of National Highway. It is also not denied that Nagar Panchayat had passed resolution (Annexure P-6) dated 19.06.2010 to adjust petitioner at alternative place. However, the stand of respondent No. 3 is that the resolution dated 19.06.2010 could not be implemented due to non-availability of vacant space within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council, Jawa