Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1404 of 2005 Date of Decision : November 23, 2012 Plot Holder Welfare Society and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present : None -.- 1.
Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
--- Surya Kant, J.
(Oral) This writ petition impugns the orders dated 17.12.2004, 25.10.2004, 28.5.2004, passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 in exercise of their statutory powers conferred under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995.
The letters/notices dated 7.12.2001, 14.12.2001, 10.1.2002, 15.5.2002, 15.12.1998 and 17.12.2004 are also assailed.
When the writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 26.7.2005, a Coordinate Bench passed the following order:- “...The promoters from whom the petitioners are alleged to have purchased the properties, i.e., respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein after stated to have filed a revision petition under Section 34 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, which is presently stated to be listed for hearing on July 28, 2005.
Adjourned sine die.
List after the disposal of the revision petition filed by respondents No.4 & 5.
CWP No.1404 of 2005 [2].Liberty is granted to the petitiones to place on the record of this case the final order passed by the revisional authority...”
Registry has pointed out that learned counsel for the petitioners has not informed so far about disposal of the revision petition statedly filed by respondent Nos.4 & 5 not the order passed by the Revisional Authority has been placed on record.
The fact that the matter was adjourned sine die more than seven years before and the petitioners have yet not produced the order of the Revisional Authority, gives an impression as if their grievance has been fully redressed.
Be that as it may, if the revisional order does not resolve the dispute, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition wherein challenge to the revisional order, if so required, may also be made in accordance with law.
With liberty aforementioned, the writ petition is disposed of.
$ (SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) November 23, 2012 JUDGE Mohinder