Arvind Kumar & ANR v. Pb Urban Development Authority & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH [1] Civil Writ Petition No.15165 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 11, 2015 Arvind Kumar and another .....Petitioners versus Punjab Urban Development Authority & others ....Respondents [2] Civil Writ Petition No.15759 of 2015 Dinesh Gupta and others .....Petitioners versus Punjab Urban Development Authority & others ....Respondents [3] Civil Writ Petition No.15766 of 2015 Anil Kumar and another .....Petitioners versus Punjab Urban Development Authority & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

Present: Mr.Vishal Khatri, Advocate, for Mr.Barjesh Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondents-PUDA. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.

-.-

1. Whether Reporters of 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.15165, 15759 and 15766 of 2015 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.15165 of 2015.

We may at the outset mention that though Mr.Balwinder Singh, learned counsel for respondents-PUDA MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.15165 of 2015 and connected cases [2] seeks time to file reply-affidavit but having regard to the nature of relief sought in this petition and the fact that such an issue already stands decided by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.12.2014 passed in CWP No.12630 of 2014 (Tek Chand Arora versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others ), (P-19), we do not deem it necessary to obtain any reply from the respondents.

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 02.07.2015 (P-21) whereby they have been asked to pay the non-construction charges in respect of residential plot Nos.16 & 17, Urban Estate, SDE Residence Site, Faridkot. Identical notice demanding non-construction charges was subject-matter of challenge before this Court in CWP No.12630 of 2014 (Tek Chand Arora versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others), which came to be allowed vide order dated 03.12.2014.

For the reasons assigned by this Court in the order dated 03.12.2014 passed in Tek Chand Arora's case (supra), the instant writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are set-aside in the same terms.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE September 11, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh