Naresh Kumar And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP No. 19388 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19388 of 2016 Date of Decision: 19.9.2016 Naresh Kumar and another ....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

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

PRESENT: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to allot a plot to them in Sector 11-12, Panipat in view of the order dated 25.4.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011 for which the petitioners had already sent a legal notice dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure P6). 2.

Shri Budh Raj, father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 was having share in the land measuring 16 kanals situated within the revenue estate of village Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat. Government of Haryana acquired the land of Shri Budh Raj for the development and utilization of land as residential/commercial and industrial Sector 11-12, Panipat vide award dated 14.2.1979. A meager amount of Gurbachan Singh 2016.09.21 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No. 19388 of 2016 -2compensation was given to the petitioners. State of Haryana framed policies dated 10.9.1987 (Annexure P-1), dated 9.5.1990 (Annexure P-2), dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-3) and dated 12.3.1993 (Annexure P-4). This Court vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-5) in LPA No. 2096 of 2011 directed the authorities to make allotment of plot/commercial sites to the land owners whose land was acquired by HUDA and other acquiring authorities. Accordingly, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure P-6) upon respondents No.2 to 4 for the allotment of plot in oustee category, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioners have sent a legal notice dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure P-6) to respondents No.2 to 4, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, 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.4 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure P-6), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 19, 2016 (KULDIP SINGH) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2016.09.21 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Whether Reportable Yes/No