← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/8120/2018disposed of

Harbhajan Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2018-04-03Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retd.),Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu2 pages

CWP-8120-2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8120-2018 Date of Decision: 3.4.2018 Harbhajan Singh ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

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 respondent No.2 to allot a plot measuring 300 square yard in lieu of his acquired land for Bharat Nagar Extension Development Scheme.

2.

The petitioner was owner of more than 8 kanals of land situated within the revenue estate of village Jalandhar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar as per the jamabandis for the years 2004-05 and 2009-10 (Annexures P-1 Colly). The said land was acquired vide notification dated 30.4.2001 issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 for 170 Acre Development Scheme known as Surya Enclave. The award was passed on 29.4.2003. As per Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a plot. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an Gurbachan Singh 2018.04.16 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8120-2018 -2application for the allotment of plot and deposited the earnest money of ` 20,000/- vide receipt dated 21.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner moved the representations dated 29.7.2009, 21.5.2010 and 5.1.2018 (Annexures P-3 to P-5, respectively) to respondent No.2 for the allotment of a plot, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent the representations dated 29.7.2009, 21.5.2010 and 5.1.2018 (Annexures P-3 to P-5, respectively) to the respondents, but no action has so far been taken thereon. 4.

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 5.1.2018 (Annexure P-5), 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 April 3, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.04.16 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document