← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/8660/2018disposed of

Sangeeta Jain v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2018-04-06Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retd.),Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu2 pages

CWP-8660-2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8660-2018 Date of Decision: 6.4.2018 Smt. Sangeeta Jain ....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. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. 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 deliver of the possession of plot No.322P, Sector 11, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh, measuring 14 marlas on freehold basis.

2.

In pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No.3, one Shri Virender Singh Dala applied for the allotment of a residential plot in Sector 11, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh. Vide allotment letter dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), said Shri Virender Singh Dala was allotted plot No.322P, Sector 11, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh measuring 14 marlas. Shri Deepak Kumar purchased the said plot which was transferred in his favour vide re-allotment letter dated 29.6.2012 (Annexure P-2) from whom the petitioner purchased the said plot which was allotted in her favour vide reallotment letter dated 25.3.2013. The petitioner deposited all the Gurbachan Singh 2018.04.16 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8660-2018 -2installments along with interest. The possession was to be delivered to the petitioner upto 24.10.2014, but the possession was not delivered to her. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 18.1.2018 (Annexure P4) to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and respondent No.3 to deliver the possession of the plot in question, 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 served a legal notice dated 18.1.2018 (Annexure P-4) upon the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and respondent No.3, 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.3 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 18.1.2018 (Annexure P-4), 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 6, 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