In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Vs. G.P.Sood ....Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091559
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-10-2013
AppellantIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
RespondentG.P.Sood ....Petitioner
Excerpt:
c.w.p.no.1808 of 1994 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh ***** c.w.p.no.1808 of 1994 date of decision: 10.09.2013 g.p.sood ....petitioner versus state of haryana and others ....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal hon’ble mr.justice mahavir s. chauhan present: none for the petitioner. mr.anjum ahmed, additional advocate general, haryana for respondent no.1. mr.ajay nara, advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. satish kumar mittal, j. (oral) the petitioner was allotted plot no.512, sector 31-32a, gurgaon, on free hold basis, vide allotment letter dated 17.04.1989 (annexure p-1).in the present petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing of notices dated 31.07.1993 (annexure p-3) and 06.01.1994 (annexure p-10).whereby certain additional amount was demanded from the petitioner on account of enhancement of the acquisition cost and penalty. the case was admitted on 07.02.1995 and recovery of the penalty was stayed. counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 informed this court that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner transferred the said plot with the prior permission of the haryana urban development authority, gurgaon, after depositing the requisite amount, in favour of one bir singh and re- virender singh adhikari 2013.09.11 16:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1808 of 1994 -2- allotment letter in favour of said bir singh was issued on 06.08.1999. it has been further stated that said bir singh after getting sanctioned building plan, raised construction over the said plot. in view of this fact, the writ petition has become infructuous. since, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has lost the interest in this case. in view of the aforesaid fact, this writ petition is dismissed having been rendered infructuous. (satish kumar mittal) judge (mahavir s. chauhan) judge1009.2013 adhikari virender singh adhikari 2013.09.11 16:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

C.W.P.No.1808 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P.No.1808 of 1994 Date of Decision: 10.09.2013 G.P.Sood ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1.

Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner was allotted plot No.512, Sector 31-32A, Gurgaon, on free hold basis, vide allotment letter dated 17.04.1989 (Annexure P-1).In the present petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing of notices dated 31.07.1993 (Annexure P-3) and 06.01.1994 (Annexure P-10).whereby certain additional amount was demanded from the petitioner on account of enhancement of the acquisition cost and penalty.

The case was admitted on 07.02.1995 and recovery of the penalty was stayed.

Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 informed this Court that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner transferred the said plot with the prior permission of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon, after depositing the requisite amount, in favour of one Bir Singh and re- Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.11 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1808 of 1994 -2- allotment letter in favour of said Bir Singh was issued on 06.08.1999.

It has been further stated that said Bir Singh after getting sanctioned building plan, raised construction over the said plot.

In view of this fact, the writ petition has become infructuous.

Since, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has lost the interest in this case.

In view of the aforesaid fact, this writ petition is dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN) JUDGE1009.2013 adhikari Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.11 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh