Vinay Kumar v. Haryana Urban Development Authority Etc

CWP No. 13023 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13023 of 2016 Date of Decision: 8.7.2016 Vinay Kumar ....Petitioner.

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others

...Respondents.

1.

Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN.

PRESENT: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ 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 the respondents to allot alternative plot to him in Faridabad, in any sector, which is fully developed and free from the purview of the Forest Act, in lieu of plot No. 443-P, Sector 45, Faridabad, measuring 90 square meters.

2.

Plot No. 443-P, Sector 45, measuring 90 square meters, Faridabad was initially allotted to Smt. Veena Rani in the draw of lots vide allotment letter dated 18.8.1992. The petitioner purchased the said plot from Smt. Veena Rani and allotment letter dated 21.4.1995 (Annexure P-1) GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.07.11 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh was issued in his favour. The petitioner requested the respondents to

CWP No. 13023 of 2016 -2handover the possession of the plot in question, but to no effect. The respondents vide letter dated 4.7.2014 (Annexure P-2) declared that the plot in question comes under the forest area and, therefore, the possession of the same could not be given to the petitioner. The petitioner moved a legal notice dated 14.1.2016 (Annexure P-3) to the respondents for the allotment of an alternate plot 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 sent a legal notice dated 14.1.2016 (Annexure P-3) to the respondents, but no action has so far been taken thereon. Reliance was also placed upon the orders (Annexures P-4 to P-8) passed by this Court.

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.1 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 14.1.2016 (Annexure P-3), 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 July 8, 2016 (RAMENDRA JAIN) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.07.11 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh