Vijay Chauhan @ Vijaya Chauhan v. State Of Punjab And Others
C.W.P. No. 19546 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 19546 of 2024 Date of decision: 13.08.2024 Vijay Chauhan @ Vijaya Chauhan .... Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. Vipul, Advocate for Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
ARUN PALLI, J (Oral) The petitioner (Vijay Chauhan @ Vijaya Chauhan) has prayed for the following substantive relief:
"Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus issuing directions to the respondent No.4 to decide the revision petition Annexure P-11 filed by the petitioner vide Revision Petition of 2015 in respect of Form No.337307, Aero City 500 Sq. Yrd. in a time bound manner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated December 10, 2013 (P-9), Letter of Intent (LOI), dated March 10, 2011, issued in favour of the petitioner, was cancelled and 10% of the earnest money (Rs.6,00,000/-) deposited by her had since been forfeited. He submits that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which too, however, was dismissed by the Additional Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (respondent No.3), vide order dated February 10, 2015 (P-10). Whereafter, she preferred a revision under Section 45 (8) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planing Act, 1995 (1995 Act), which is pending since 2015. He submits that the limited grievance, that the petitioner has is: even though 9 years have gone by but the revisional authority has not decided the matter. He submits that DEEPAK KUMAR 2024.08.14 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh the matter was last listed in July 2024, but, to date, no further date has been
C.W.P. No. 19546 of 2024 notified. Thus, he submits that the rights/interest of the petitioner are gravely impaired.
Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Jastej Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, is present in Court on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, he fairly submits that if, despite the revision being filed as back as in the year 2015, no orders have been passed, possibly there would be no justification as regards the delay that has occurred. However, it is urged that revisional authority shall make every possible endavour to take up the matter and dispose of the same, within four weeks from today.
That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing substantive survives in this petition and the same be disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned State counsel. In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is accordingly disposed of.
Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated earlier, the competent authority shall examine the grievances of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.
(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 13.08.2024 deepak Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2024.08.14 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh