IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 138 ) CWP No.19992 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.07.2025 Jaswinderpal Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Union Territory Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. S. Talwar, Advocate and Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Himanshu Arora, Additional Standing Counsel, Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan, Junior Panel Counsel and Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate for respondents-UT, Chandigarh. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that since, as of today, on date the U.T., Chandigarh has demolished the shops of each of the petitioners and has also taken possession of the land on which these shops had been constructed, he has express instructions from each of the petitioners that in case the U.T. Administration agrees to reconsider the petitioners’ request for their rehabilitation, they would not press their prayer with regard to the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. (2) In response to the afore alternate prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned Senior Standing Counsel for U.T., SUNIL YADAV 2025.07.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh CWP No.19992 of 2025 [2] Chandigarh submits that purely on the ground of equity, the U.T. Administration withdraws the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and shall, reconsider the petitioners’ request for rehabilitation of their furniture shops but only after ascertaining all relevant factors including the genuineness of the claim made by each of the petitioners, in accordance with law. (3) The afore statement of Mr. Jhanji is acceptable to Mr. Bhan. (4) In the light of the above, since the impugned order dated 09.01.2025, passed by Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh, stands withdrawn by the U.T., Chandigarh, we relegate the petitioners to respondent No.4, who in turn, in the light of the above statement made on behalf of the U.T., Chandigarh, is directed to consider the petitioners’ claim for rehabilitation expeditiously but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after affording opportunity of hearing to the authorized representative(s) of the petitioners, in accordance with law. (5) Needless to add that at the time of consideration of the petitioners claim, as above, it shall be open to both the parties to raise all available pleas in fact and in law, only after consideration of which a final decision shall be taken by respondent No.4 with regard to the petitioners’ claim for their rehabilitation. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 23.07.2025 ( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.07.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh