Arvind Gupta v. Gmada And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15182 of 2015 Date of Decision: August 18, 2015 Arvind Gupta .....Petitioner versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

Present: Mr.Yowan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.-

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) The instant writ petition, in sum and substance, seeks execution of the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab.

Adverting to the facts of the case, the controversy pertains to allotment price of a commercial property and consequential liability of the petitioner. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner as well as Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) both were before this Court through their respective writ petitions. This Court vide order dated 11.03.2013, in no uncertain terms, directed the petitioner to deposit the balance allotment price alongwith interest @12% per annum minus the penalty and surcharge on or before 31.05.2013 and on deposit thereof, GMADA was directed to issue the Letter of Intent/allotment letter. The MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.01 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.15182 of 2015 [2] question of interest and penalty was directed to be decided a fresh by the Revisional Authority.

The petitioner admittedly did not comply with the above-stated directions. Contrarily, he got the order dated 31.01.2014 from the Revisional Authority directing GMADA to issue Letter of Intent even without deposit of the normal allotment price with interest.

The petitioner now alleges non-compliance of that order by the Estate Officer.

While, we leave it for the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department to see as to how his order can be given effect, so far as this Court is concerned, the petitioner having accepted the order dated 11.03.2013 passed by this Court is obligated to comply with the directions contained in para-15(i) of that order and then only Letter of Intent can be issued.

No case to interfere with the impugned action is thus made out.

Dismissed with liberty aforementioned.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE August 18, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.01 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh