Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Chandigarh To Frame Rehab Policy For J&K Migrant Workers Evicted After 4 Decades
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to consider framing a rehabilitation policy for migrant labourers from Jammu & Kashmir who have been residing in government quarters for nearly four decades. Acknowledging that the petitioners have been living in the premises for approximately 37 years, the Court held that immediate eviction would be "unjust...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to consider framing a rehabilitation policy for migrant labourers from Jammu & Kashmir who have been residing in government quarters for nearly four decades. Acknowledging that the petitioners have been living in the premises for approximately 37 years, the Court held that immediate eviction would be "unjust and harsh."
In 1983-84, the State of Jammu and Kashmir requested the Chandigarh Administration to accommodate the migrant workers migrating from the State to the Union Territory during the harsh winter season to earn their livelihood. Their request was acceded to by the Chandigarh Administration and the petitioners were accommodated on a temporary basis in the 60 quarters. However, later on request of J&K Government in 2012, UT directed to vacate the quarters.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said, "However, it is significant to note that the petitioners have been staying in the quarters for about 37 years and it would be unjust and harsh to direct their eviction forthwith. It would be in the interest of justice, that they be accorded reasonable time to make alternative arrangement and to vacate the premises. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant them time till 31.03.2026 to vacate the quarters."
The Court directed the Chandigarh Administration to consider rehabilitation of the petitioners as they have been residing in Chandigarh for almost 4 decades and if necessary, consider framing policy in that regard.
These observations were made while hearing a batch of 15 petitions filed by migrant labourers from the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. They sought direction declaring the action of the Chandigarh Administration in evicting them without rehabilitating them, as illegal. Directions were also sought to the respondents to look into their grievances and rehabilitate them as per their policies.
It was submitted that the petitioners have been residing at the accommodation provided to them by Chandigarh Administration for over 37 years and therefore, they ought not to be evicted without following due procedure of law.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that State of Jammu and Kashmir, had requested the Chandigarh Administration to accommodate the migrant labourers from the State during the winter season and hence, the petitioners had been accommodated only temporarily, in the residential flats which had been handed over by the Chandigarh Administration to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The mere fact that the petitioners have been staying in the residential flats for over 37 years does not vest in them any right to continue living there in perpetuity, it added.
The State of Jammu and Kashmir sought to reclaim possession of government quarters occupied by the petitioners, alleging unauthorised occupation. An eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer on 21.06.2012 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The petitioners' appeal against this order was also dismissed in 2012. Subsequently, they filed writ petitions challenging both the eviction and appellate orders. However, the High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners had no legal right to retain possession of the premises.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that it is manifest that the order evicting the residents had been upheld by this Court and it had attained finality in the year 2012.
Therefore, the bench said "same issue cannot be reopened and re-agitated in the instant petitions. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents directing the eviction of the petitioners."
Ms. Savita Sisodia, Advocate and Mr. Chouhan S.S. Sisodia, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-12788-2022, 30639-2019, 17220-2020, 13119-2022, 18035-2024, 18729-2024, 18747-2024 and 18750-2024.
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, Mr. Arishdeep Mraad, Advocate and Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-18734-2024, 18940-2024, 18999-2024 and 19165-2024.
Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Manglesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-37382-2019.
Mr. Karik Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-18825-2024.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Sony, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-20723-2024.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate, for the respondent-UOI.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh and Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate, Junior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh for the respondent-UT Chandigarh.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-J&K.
Title: SALINDER KUMAR AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS