NASIB SINGH Vs. ESTATE OFFICER UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to rspondents Nos.1 and 2 to remove the unauthorised "Khokhas" on old Ropar road, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh in accordance with the order dated 15.6.1994 passed by the Administrator/Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

(2.) The aforementioned prayer of the petitioner is founded on his assertion that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not vacated unauthorised occupation of the public property in spite of the fact that they were allotted site Nos. 583 and 600 on 11.4.1979 and 20.4.1979 respectively. In lieu of the Khokhas situated on old Ropar Road, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. He has also averred that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not vacated unauthorised occupation in spite of the order Annexure P-9 passed by the Administrator/Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

(3.) In Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the counter-affidavit dated 27.11.1998 filed by Shri Ashish Kundra, Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been stated that the Khokhas situated on old Ropar Road in front of the land of the petitioner fall within the jurisdiction of Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, Chandigarh and the same is under the control of Municipal Corporation and further that the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh has nothing to do with them. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed separate but similar written statements. They have challenged the petitioner's locus standi to maintain this writ petition by stating that he is guilty of concealing the material fact, namely, filing of the civil suit by his father - Shri Chanchal Singh (now dead). They have also averred that their Khokhas do not encroach upon public land and the sites allotted to them are not in lieu of the disputed Khokhas.