Skip to content


Lalit Kumar Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantLalit Kumar
RespondentHaryana Urban Development Authority and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana, at chandigarh civil writ petition no.23304 of 2012 date of decision:27. 11.2012 lalit kumar ..petitioner versus haryana urban development authority and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh. hon'ble mr.justice rameshwar singh malik. present: mr.gaurav bakshi, advocate for the petitioner. jasbir singh, judge (oral) notice of motion. on asking of the court, mr.rishi tandon, advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. it is prayer of the petitioner that directions be issued to the respondents to allot him an alternative plot in lieu of plot bearing no.1047, sector 31, faridabad as per policy of the respondents. it is stated that the above said plot was allotted to the original allottee, namely karan singh in the year.....
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.23304 of 2012 Date of Decision:

27. 11.2012 Lalit Kumar ..Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik.

Present: Mr.Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr.Rishi Tandon, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

It is prayer of the petitioner that directions be issued to the respondents to allot him an alternative plot in lieu of plot bearing No.1047, Sector 31, Faridabad as per Policy of the respondents.

It is stated that the above said plot was allotted to the original allottee, namely Karan Singh in the year 1983 and the entire sale consideration stood paid to the authorities.

The petitioner purchased the above said plot in the year 1994.

Despite requests, possession of the plot in dispute has not been delivered to the petitioner.

To say so, reference was made to information received under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 7.6.2012 (Annexure P5).It is stated that the plot in dispute comes under Existing Civil Writ Petition No.23304 o”

2. Industries and its possession is cannot be delivered.

It is an admitted fact that in such like cases, policy of the State Government dated 10.12.2007 provides allotment of an alternative plot to the allottees.

To claim relief, reliance has also been placed upon judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in in the case of Parveen Vashisht v.

Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others (Civil Writ Petition No.23185 of 2011 (O&M).decided on 31.1.2012).Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to respondent No.3 to allot an alternate plot to the petitioner, in terms of the Policy of the State Government, as referred to above, if there is no legal hitch in doing the same.

Needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Rameshwar Singh Malik) Judge November 27, 2012 “DK”.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //