ESTATE OFFICE, & ANOTHER Vs. RAKSHA DEVI MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants - Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh etc. are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2016 rendered by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh allowing the suit for declaration and the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled to allotment of one booth in Sector 41, Chandigarh on the basis of handcart license and to the possession of the site resettled from Bajwara Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh against which rights other similarly placed persons holding handcart licenses in Bajwara Market were allotted constructed (pucca) booths in Sector 41, Chandigarh. However, the plaintiff was denied the right claimed through her late husband Om Parkash Mahajan, the original handcart license holder under the UT Administration after being screened eligible as per criteria laid down in the Allotment Rules known as 'Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991'. The said Rules were notified on 07.03.1991.

(2.) An eligible person in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, i.e. the license holder was required to hold a valid handcart license on the date of notification i.e. 07.03.1991. The original site in question was described as Site No.144, Rehri Market, opposite Shishu Niketan School, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. Pursuant to letter dated 02.04.1991 issued by the Estate Officer demanding deposit of initial sum for processing the claim for allotment at resettlement site, late Om Parkash Mahajan, the husband of the plaintiff deposited earnest money of Rs. 3000/- vide receipt dated 11.04.1991. Husband of the plaintiff died on 21.10.1994 leaving behind two legal heirs i.e. plaintiff and daughter Poonam.

(3.) After the husband expired, plaintiff applied for transfer of handcart license in her favour in the year 1995 on the basis of inheritance and since she had started running the rehri in place of her late husband she staked her claim. The Estate Officer asked her to complete certain formalities vide letter dated 17.03.1997 so that the license could be transferred in her name. She was asked to attend the office personally vide subsequent letter dated 09.06.1997, which she complied and attended office. But even on completion of all formalities, handcart license was not transferred in her name. She made a reasoned representation on 16.07.1999 and in response thereto, a letter was issued by the defendants on 08.12.1999 asking her to apply afresh along with all the pre-requisite documents. She complied with those conditions, but was still not issued license. She was informed that the policy decision was under reconsideration. She had by then become old and engaged a servant to do business on her behalf at site No.144 in Sector 22, Chandigarh, which market had to be shifted as per policy. She claimed that she has no other source of income except whatever she could earn from the use of the site.