Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4261-2019 Date of decision: 09.04.2024 Vinod Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CWP-4267-2019 Sapna ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CWP-4270-2019 Raj Bala ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for the respondent-HSVP.

**** ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) For, learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter in issue in all these three cases is identical, these are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. However, the facts are being derived from CWP No.4261-2019.

The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- 


 

  
  


 

   


 
 
  

  



 

  

 

   
   
 
 


  
 
  !"
#

$ %&

  '

(


  



 )  
'





*


*
' 
 
  

) (

 
'

 
'




 

+)
,  
 
-
.

/  
0'
1   (

    
 2
3
-


4 
5 !
  

 
!! !
 


6 
4  7

 !!
  
/  
0'   (

  
3
 
.
8 


3
 9
  

5 : !
41
;  


   
, (
  

  







 

(


  


 




  


  

-


< 
     


  (


 
 
 
!"=!77
#

$ %=&
 
  

 

 
'


 




 
! 
#

$ %:&
 

 

 
7!! !
#

$ %5&9

Post notice of motion, written statement on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 has since been filed. In essence, the defence set out by the respondent authorities is that eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner for allotment of a site/plot, being a displaced person, is conceded. However, despite that, the petitioner chose not to respond to the advertisement that was issued, pursuant whereto, his claim could be considered/satisfied.

In reference to clause 15 of the Policy dated 11.08.2016 (R-2), learned counsel for the respondent-HSVP submits that as and when a fresh advertisement is issued, the petitioner would be free to respond thereto and seek allotment, in terms of his entitlement. And, in that eventuality, the authorities would consider the claim of the petitioner in the right earnest and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. Further, he submits, for the petitioner had earlier moved an application dated 21.10.2013, along with earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-, he would be free to carry out necessary formalities, to enable the authorities to refund the said amount along with interest @ 5.5% per annum, which would be

 

without prejudice to the rights/interest of the petitioner. For, he would always be at liberty to apply for allotment, pursuant to a fresh advertisement as and when issued.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that let these petitions be disposed of, in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-HSVP.

In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 09.04.2024 Ak Sharma