Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23397 of 2012 Date of Decision : November 29, 2012 Harpal Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.-.- 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) The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short 'the GMADA') to allot them a plot measuring 200 sq.yd.
against application form No.16687 dated 22.1.2002 under Oustee Category as per the policy decision dated 25.5.2011, for which they submitted application dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure P-6).The averments in the writ petition reveal that the land measuring 15 kanals 2 marlas owned by predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners within the revenue estate of village Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar Mohali, was acquired by the State Government for setting up Sectors 76-80 in the area of SAS Nagar Mohali, vide Award No.480 dated 7.5.2001.
The predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners applied for a plot measuring 4 marlas under the Oustees Category vide application form No.16687 dated 22.1.2002 and deposited the requisite earnest money.
However, before the allotment could be made, the respondents are said to have taken a new policy decision dated 25.5.2011 according to CWP No.23397 of 2012 [2].which the petitioneRs.as per the size of the acquired land, became eligible for allotment of bigger size plot, i.e., 200 sq.
yd.
The new policy gave liberty to the oustees to apply within six months and the petitioners are said to have applied within the stipulated period alongwith a bank draft of Rs.50,000/- dated 18.7.2011.
Since no decision on their application appears to have been taken so far that they approached this Court seeking the desired mandamus.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the nature of relief sought which is essentially based upon the policy decision said to have taken by the respondents and also taking into consideration that respondents are yet to take final decision in the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on merits of the petitioneRs.claim, with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to decide the above mentioned claim of the petitioners which is also contained in their legal notice dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure P-7).by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
$ (SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ November 29, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE