Ram Chander v. Chief Administrator, Huda & ORS

CWP No. 11121 of 2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11121 of 2015 Date of Decision: 28.5.2015 Ram Chander ....Petitioner.

Versus

Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to allot a plot to him under the oustee quota. Further a direction has been sought to be issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the petitioner 2.

The petitioner was owner in possession of land measuring 16 kanals to the extent of 1/32 share situated in village Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat. The said land was acquired by respondent No.4 for the development of Sectors 11-12, Panipat. The petitioner moved an application dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of plot under oustee quota. Since no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner sent a representation dated 13.8.2013 GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.29 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No. 11121 of 2015 -2- (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.3 for allotment of plot under oustee quota, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has moved a representation dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.3, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to decide the representation dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure P-2), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 28, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.29 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh