Arvind Kumar Saini And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-7891-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7891-2024 Date of Decision: April 10, 2024 Arvind Kumar Saini and another ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of direction to restrain the respondents, particularly respondents No.3 and 4, from illegally and forcibly taking utilizing and demolishing part of the building/land of the Hotel Mark, Arjun Nagar, Delhi Road, Rohtak under the garb of utilizing the said portion for construction of 15 feet road abutting the elevated Railway Track, without adopting due course of law, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed to quash the impugned notices, dated 15.03.2024 and 01.04.2024, Annexure P-17 and Annexure P-22.

Precise submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the petitioners have already filed their reply to the notice dated 01.04.2024 but respondents are not accepting the same. Notice of motion to the officials respondents only. On asking of the Court, Ms. Upasana Dhawan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court along with respondent No.4- Mr.Sandeep Batra, Land Officer, accepts notice on behalf of the MEENU 2024.04.10 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7891-2024 -2respondents/State and on instructions has submitted that notices were duly issued to the petitioners to which they have filed the reply in which they have given an undertaking that they would deposit the requisite charges, as per policy. The Court has interacted with the Officer, who is present in Court. He has fairly submitted that on payment of necessary charges and other formalities, the necessary order would be passed within one week from the date of payment.

In view of the above statement made by the Officer present in Court, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to deposit the necessary charges, as per the undertaking given by them in the reply with the respondent/authorities by 19.04.2024 and on payment of the same, necessary order would be passed by the respondent/authorities as per law within one week from the date of receipt of payment. However, petitioners would be at liberty to pursue their remedies in case any further cause of action accrue to them.

April 10, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2024.04.10 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document