High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/1051/2018disposed of

Murari Lal v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2018-07-18Mr. Justice Krishna Murari,Mr. Justice Arun Palli2 pages

LPA-1051-2018 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH LPA-1051-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 18, 2018 Murari Lal ...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE.

Present:

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh Smagh, Advocate, for the appellant..

KRISHNA MURARI, C.J. (ORAL) The appellant, claiming to be disabled person, alongwith proforma respondent Nos. 7 and 8, approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, directing their ejectment from the Viklang Kalyan Kendra, Nilokheri (Karnal). Mandamus was also claimed to command the respondents in the writ petition to rehabilitate the petitioners alongwith other physically disabled persons.

Undisputed facts are that there were complaints against the petitioners that they are occupying the premises illegally and running computer business and also creating nuisance by consuming liquor. Prashant Kapoor 2018.07.20 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

LPA-1051-2018 (O&M) Learned counsel vehemently contends that the petitioners were living in the said premises since they were aged three years and were permitted by the Society which run the Viklang Kalyan Kendra. Be that as it may. It is undisputed that now the petitioners are more than 35 years of age and it is the Society, which runs the Viklang Kalyan Kendra, has been making complaint against them. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show us any legal right vested in the appellant to continue to occupy the premises. Learned Single Judge finding that the building has been handed over to Tapan Rehabilitation Society working for the mentally retarded and physically challenged children and that the petitioners are of major age and illegally occupying premises, running their personal business of computer centre, has rightly refused to interfere in the matter at their behest. We find no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE July 18, 2018 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES / NO Whether Reportable:

YES / NO Prashant Kapoor 2018.07.20 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document