The judgment establishes that encroachers of public land do not have a legal right to be rehabilitated and emphasizes the importance of planned development of cities and regulation of building construction activity for public welfare.

1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 9506, 9507, 11699 of 2001 and C.W.P. Nos. 10381 and 14291 of 2003 filed by similarly situated Pan/Bidi/tea stall vendors etc. working in Phase-IVA, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana. In the year 1993, the respondent-Corporation carried out a demolition exercise to remove encroachments from the public land. A survey was conducted to ascertain the persons who are running Khokhas. (kiosks) on the public land in Focal Point, Ludhiana. The petitioners claim to be one of those carrying out their Khokhas.

2. A scheme was framed in the year 1993 by respondent-Corporation to allot 10 square yard land to each of the Khokha owners at the price of ` 350/- per square yard. The persons running Khokhas were to deposit earnest money of ` 700/- by 15.08.1993. Though, the petitioners deposited the amount demanded but still allotments were not made. Thereafter, on 11.06.2001 the Corporation fixed price of ` 1,33,000/- for the allotment of 10 square yards of land to the persons running Khokhas. The petitioners were called upon to remit ` 13,300/- towards earnest money being 10% of the cost of the offered site. It is at that stage the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the action of the respondent-Corporation being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

3. In reply filed in C.W.P. No. 9506 of 2001, reference is made to the orders passed in C.W.P. No. 6934 of 2000 titled Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 30.04.2000 and C.W.P. No. 11418 of 2000 titled Rajinder Singh Bedi v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, decided on 19.07.2001, holding that in respect of price fixation, the High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that a duly constituted Estimate Approval Committee under the Chairmanship of the Managing Director of the Corporation has fixed the price on rational basis after taking into consideration the average bids realized from auction of commercial booth at Dhandari Kalan which was to the tune of ` 11,191/- per square yard. The price of `1,33,000/- was arrived at after taking into consideration the provision of pucca platform with cement and toilets etc. to be provided by the Corporation. The minutes of the Estimate Approval Committee has been appended with the reply as Annexure R-3/1.

4. As per the facts on record, the petitioners are squatters of public land and are rank 'encroacher'. They are in occupation of public land for more than two decades. The attempts of the Corporation to rehabilitate the persons like the petitioners have encountered road-block but we find that the petitioners cannot be permitted to scuttle the process of rehabilitation. The question of the right of the person in occupation of the public land has been examined by the Supreme Court in number of cases. Such as in Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 787 : 2004 (8) SCC 733. The Court dealt with the importance of lay-out plans within the municipal limits and also the importance to maintain peace, good order, dignity, protection and comfort and safety of the community. It was observed that the layout helps in achieving family values, youth values, seclusion and clean air to make the locality a better place to live. It was held as follows:

"22. In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners a