JUDGMENT : Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP No. 12215 of 2015 titled as Pardeep Kumar @ Bunty v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12231 of 2015 titled as Yogesh Garg v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12273 of 2015 titled as Ram Ditta v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12297 of 2015 titled as Nitin Kumar v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12505 of 2015 titled as Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12506 of 2015 titled as Khem Chand v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12560 of 2015 titled as Anil Kumar & Another v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 12561 of 2015 titled as Ram Shobhit Mahato & Another v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 15380 of 2015 titled as Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Haryana & Another, CWP No. 15965 of 2015 titled as Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 15993 of 2015 titled as Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 17306 of 2015 titled as Jagdish v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 17965 of 2015 titled as Palat Mahato v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 17966 of 2015 titled as Varinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 18592 of 2015 titled as Pran Nath v. State of Haryana & Another, CWP No. 20509 of 2015 titled as Rattan Lal Khilawan v. State of Haryana & Another, CWP No. 20515 of 2015 titled as Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana & Another and CWP No. 20595 of 2015 titled as Rajesh v. State of Haryana & Another as the issue involved is identical. 2. The petitioners in these connected petitions are aggrieved of the action of the Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the trust') in not allotting to them the phari booth sites. 3. The case set up in a nutshell is that the petitioners/their predecessors were engaged in the business of selling vegetables in the old Sabzi Mandi, Karnal as road side vendors. The trust framed a Street Development Scheme No. 37 as a result of which the petitioners were ousted from the area and thus became displaced persons under the provisions of the Karnal Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1976. The trust framed a Street Development Scheme No. 37 as a result of which the petitioners were ousted from the area and thus became displaced persons under the provisions of the Karnal Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1976. The scheme came to be challenged by the land owners by filing CWP No. 5829 of 1989 in this Court but the same was rendered infructous on the basis of a statement made by the counsel representing the trust that alternative sites would be offered to the owners. Scheme No. 37 (since renumbered as Scheme No. 67) was approved by the Senior Town Planner, Haryana on 29.01.1999 but no provision was made for accommodating the phari walas (road side vendors). It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the trust has held out assurances from time to time to accommodate and rehabilitate the road side vendors who had been displaced from the old sabzi mandi. Reliance has also been placed upon the proceedings of a meeting of the trust held on 29.12.1989 and in which Resolution No. 172 was passed and which is in the following terms: "172. As per the office report, these are about 400 Phari booth sites in Sabzi Mandi Scheme No. 67. Applications were sought for from persons selling vegetables on Phari Area and doing other works in Sabzi Mandi. Improvement Trust has to allot plots to public and Chairman, after meeting the Phariwallahas, has considered it fit that those people who are working there should be given preference in allotment of Phari Booth sites so that these poor persons can do their work. These phari booths should be allotted only to those persons who are working on site. A complete survey would be done and name of persons, who are working there, would be recommended. A sub-committee should be constituted for the purpose of survey which should present its report immediately. These persons have filed applications praying that they should be given concession in the rates. Improvement Trust has fixed the rate of booth site as Rs. 3,100/- per square yard, office has stated that these persons should be charged Rs. 3,400/- per square yard instead of Rs. 3,100/- per square yard as these are new phariwallahas. A sub committee consisting of: 1. Chairman 2. Shri Madan Goyal 3. Shri O.P. Rana 4. Shri Dalbir Sidhu 5. Shri Satnam 6. 3,100/- per square yard, office has stated that these persons should be charged Rs. 3,400/- per square yard instead of Rs. 3,100/- per square yard as these are new phariwallahas. A sub committee consisting of: 1. Chairman 2. Shri Madan Goyal 3. Shri O.P. Rana 4. Shri Dalbir Sidhu 5. Shri Satnam 6. Shri Charanjit Wadhawa is constituted." 4. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the road side vendors including the petitioners having not been accommodated and allotted alternative sites/phari sites, a number of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court. CWP No. 1893 of 1989, Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana & Another and other connected petitions were decided on 07.02.1997 and it was held therein that the street hawkers/road side vendors are also entitled for allotment of sites in view of the resolution of the Improvement Trust dated 29.12.1989. 5. Yet another round of litigation ensued and CWP No. 10089 of 1998 Darshan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another and other connected petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2014 wherein directions were issued to the trust to conduct a fresh survey for determining as to which of the persons were in the business of selling vegetables in the year 1998. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that in compliance of the directions of the Division Bench, a survey was conducted but during the evening hours. It was further submitted that the market in question is an old vegetable market and the activities start in the early hours i.e. at around 4 A.M. and last upto 9/10 A.M. As per petitioners the traders are done with the days work at about 10 A.M. and thereafter retire to their homes. The survey as per petitioners was conducted at about 4 P.M. and has been termed as irregular and just an eye wash. Petitioners claim themselves to be the oustees of the old sabzi mandi and claim that they have a vested right to be allotted phari booth sites under the Street Development Scheme No. 37 as displaced persons. 7. Claim of the petitioners has been strongly resisted by counsel appearing for the trust by stating that the petitioners were neither the owners of the shops in the old sabzi mandi, Karnal nor were tenants on the phari area in front of the shops. 7. Claim of the petitioners has been strongly resisted by counsel appearing for the trust by stating that the petitioners were neither the owners of the shops in the old sabzi mandi, Karnal nor were tenants on the phari area in front of the shops. It has been disputed that the petitioners were displaced at the time of implementation of Street Development Scheme No. 37. It has been denied that the petitioners were at any point of time working in the old sabzi mandi and as such being covered under the definition of displaced persons under the Karnal Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1976. Counsel for the trust further states that earlier in point of time a survey had been conducted on 16.03.1998 in pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court dated 07.02.1997 in Manohar Lal's case in CWP No. 1893 of 1989 and the petitioners had not been found to be engaged in the business of selling of vegetables. Further stand has been taken that in pursuance to the directions passed by the Division Bench dated 24.09.2014, a sub committee was constituted of the following members i.e. Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Karnal, Trust Engineer Municipal Corporation (Trust Cell) Karnal, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Karnal, Secretary, Municipal Corporation (Trust Cell), Karnal, Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Karnal and Secretary, Market Committee, Karnal. Such sub committee is stated to have conducted a survey on the spot on 27.11.2014 of the persons doing the business of selling of vegetables in the sabzi mandi Karnal on the pharis and even videography of the persons so engaged was done. Photographs are also stated to have been taken. Report of the sub committee was furnished on 16.12.2014 but in such report, the names of the persons in these connected petitions were not recommended as they were not found working on the spot. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record, we find that a number of disputed questions have been raised. The mode and manner of the survey conducted on 27.11.2014 has been challenged. That apart, the aspect as to whether the petitioners in these connected petitions had worked as road side vendors in the old sabzi mandi is under dispute. The facts of each of the petitioners are bound to be distinct. The mode and manner of the survey conducted on 27.11.2014 has been challenged. That apart, the aspect as to whether the petitioners in these connected petitions had worked as road side vendors in the old sabzi mandi is under dispute. The facts of each of the petitioners are bound to be distinct. It would as such not be possible to examine and adjudicate as regards the claim of the petitioners seeking allotment of booth sites in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings and avail of other remedies as may be available in accordance with law. All contentions with regard to the claim set up in these connected petitions are left open. 10. It is, however, directed that the trust shall furnish to the petitioners the relevant material i.e. report of the sub committee dated 16.12.2014 which conducted the survey, recording of the videography, photographs etc. on the basis of which the petitioners have not been found eligible and as such, not recommended for allotment of booth sites in question. 11. Disposed of.