High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/1748/2018disposed of

Lalman v. State Of Haryana And Others

2018-01-29Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retd.),Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu2 pages

CWP-1748-2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1748-2018 Date of Decision: 29.1.2018 Lalman ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

In this 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 consider his claim under Oustees Quota for the allotment of plot and to allot the same to him. 2.

The petitioner was co-owner of the land measuring 4 bigha 12 biswa and 10 biswasi out of total land measuring 10 bigha 13 biswa situated in village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 7.12.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act for the development of Sectors 52 to 54, Gurugram. The award was passed on 22.2.2007. The Gurbachan Singh 2018.01.30 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1748-2018 -2petitioner moved an application dated 29.10.2013 along with demand draft of ` 50,000/- (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of a plot under Oustees Quota. The petitioner also submitted the application dated 30.7.2015 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) to respondents No.2 and 3 to allot a plot under the Oustees Quota, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) to respondents No.2 and 3, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

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.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 24.11.2017 (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 the certified copy of the order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 29, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.01.30 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document