JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“i) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents, directing the respondent No.2 to allot the shop having the same and similar size in the newly constructed Complex under the Smart City Project which is either equivalent to or bigger than the Shop No. 87 in possession of petitioner and further the writ of certiorari may also be passed against the respondents, quashing the allotments made illegally and malafidely without adhering to the principle of natural justice by proposing to give the shop No 7 having lesser area by the respondent No.2 as per his own choice and desire without following due process of law and acting in malafide manner in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a medicine shop and Blood Testing Lab in shop No.87 on the Indira Gandhi Medical College-Sanjauli Road in Shimla for the last 60 to 70 years. The shop is owned by the respondent-Corporation. According to the petitioner, the covered area in his possession was about 160 square feet and the front of the shop was 8’ x 5’ in width. Respondent-Municipal Corporation under the Smart City Mission proposed to demolish the existing shop of the petitioner alongwith other shops to construct a new complex. The petitioner was called upon by the Corporation to vacate the premises in possession for the purposes of re-construction of the same alongwith other shops and in lieu thereof he was assured that he would be given the same area which was in his possession after reconstruction.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that now the total area that is being handed over to him is much less than what was in his possession earlier and therefore, he is not in a position to run the medicine shop as well as the Laboratory, for which there is a minimum area required and area in possession of the petitioner is less than that. According to the petitioner, the area proposed to be put in possession of petitioner i.e. Shop No.7, is measuring 110 square feet. It is in this backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court, praying for the relief mentioned hereinabove.

4. In response to the petition, the respondent-Corporation has taken the stand that the petitioner is not a lesseee of the Corporation, but a trespasser of Stall No.87, measuring 42 square feet built upon part of land bearing khasra No.240, Mauja Sanjauli, Shimla. He illegally and unauthorizedly increased the area of the said Stall to the extent of 145.90 square feet. The area measuring 42 square feet at the first instance was leased out to Shri Beyant Singh and not to the petitioner in the year 1952 for a period of one year. The ownership of the land is of the State Government and the possession is of the Municipal Corporation. The Stall was sublet by Beyant Singh to the petitioner in the year 1978 unauthorizedly by violating the terms of the Lease Deed. The lease in favour of Beyant Singh was cancelled by the House Resolution of the Corporation, dated 30.06.1978. When the Corporation found that the petitioner was in occupation of the Stall illegally, a notice was issued, on 17.02.1996, directing Beant Singh to hand over the empty possession of the Stall. In Para-3 of the reply, it has been mentioned that Stall No.7 mentioning 110 square feet has been allotted to the petitioner vide Office Letter dated 22.08.2024 on temporary basis subject to the final outcome of the Court cases pending adjudication in the Court of Collector, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, filed against the petitioner under Sections 5 and 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises Act, 1971 and other litigation, details whereof are given therein.

5. During the pendency of this petition, an application, i.e. CMP No.5761 of 2020, was filed by Shri Harsh Kukreja for being impleaded as a party respondent, inter alia, on the ground that he is the grand-son of origi