Satish Chander Khurana v. Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (Huda) And ORS

CWP-2360-2018 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2360-2018 Date of Decision: February 05, 2018 Satish Chander Khurana .....Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. ........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioner was allotted Industrial Plot No.64-F, Sector 18, Gurugram, on free-hold basis by HUDA vide allotment letter dated 03.09.2004 (Annexure P-1). The physical possession of the plot was not given on the plea that development works are yet not complete. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that another reason for not giving the plot is that there is some litigation pending in respect of the acquired land. As more than 13 years have passed, the petitioner seeks a direction to HUDA for allotment of an alternative plot out of plots bearing Nos.600, 403, 465, 394, 390 situated in Sector 37-II, Phase City-2, Gurugram, in lieu of the above-mentioned allotted plot. The petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.4846 of 2005 (Rajiv Mehrotra vs State of Meenu 2018.02.14 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh Haryana and others) dated 08.10.2010 wherein in somewhat similar

CWP-2360-2018 -2circumstances, a direction for allotment of an alternative plot has been issued. The petitioner also made a representation to Chief Administrator, HUDA dated 15.12.2017 for allotment of alternative plot but finding no response thereto, the instant writ petition has been filed. [2] In the light of the categoric stand taken by the petitioner that physical possession of the plot has not been handed over for want of development works or on account of pending litigation, but without expressing any views on merit, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot in the light of above cited decision of this Court and take an appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE February 05, 2018 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2018.02.14 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh