Ravinder Kumar v. Huda And ANR

CWP-7628-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7628-2017 Date of Decision: 25.4.2018 Ravinder Kumar ....Petitioner.

Versus

HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority), Panchkula and another

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. Sunny Namdev, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Advocate for the respondent-HUDA. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ 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 amend the rate of the plots in Sectors 9 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh for the oustees in the advertisement (Annexure P-1) and to allot a plot at reasonable rate. 2.

The land of the petitioner was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 12.5.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 10.5.1996 under Section 6 of the Act for residential Sectors 9 and 9A, Bahadurgarh. The award was passed on 20.4.1998. As per the oustees policy, the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a plot. In March, 2017, the respondents issued a notice vide advertisement (Annexure P-1) for eauction of the plots in Sector 9, Bahadurgarh. The e-auction was conducted on 20.3.2017 and a plot had been kept reserved for the petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in CWP-4947-2017. The respondents had acquired the land at the rate of ` 50-60 per square yard and were selling the Gurbachan Singh 2018.05.08 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7628-2017 -2same at a rate of ` 30,000/- per square yard which is on the higher side. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 25, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.05.08 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document