Disposed

S.S.Dhaliwal v. Do.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2009CWP/2996/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition and connected CM by directing the HUDA authorities to consider claims regarding interest, penalty, and trading permissions in light of a Division Bench judgment, without expressing views on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider claims in light of Santosh Bala judgment and dispose by reasoned order; stay on coercive steps; two months period for deposit if liable.

S.S.Dhaliwal Vs Do. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.2996 of 1993 Date of decision: April 24, 2009.

¶3

Sukhdev Singh Daliwal & Ors.

¶4

... Petitioner(s)

¶5

¶6

Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

¶7

... Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶10

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Shri Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

None for respondents.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):

¶16

The petitioners are re-allottees of the commercial sites in Sector 15, Panchkula developed by HUDA. They seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the HUDA authorities from charging interest and penalty on the due installments till all the development works are completed. They also seek a mandamus to allow them the trading of 'iron and steel' in the area specified for the said purpose.

¶17

Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed their counter affidavit, interalia , claiming that the development works, like water supply, sewerage and roads stood completed along with entire works of Sector 15 Panchkula and the petitioners were offered possession of the sites thereafter on 13.5.1991.

¶18

According to the respondents, the petitioners' claim that the development works were not carried out before auctioning of the site and/or at the time of delivering possession, are factually incorrect.

¶19

The petitioners have filed a rejoinder reiterating their allegations. Some photographs have also been placed on record to suggest that excavation work for laying of pipelines etc. is still going on.

¶20

The writ petition pertains to the year 1993 and while admitting the same, recovery of interest and penalty from the petitioners was stayed.

¶21

Civil Misc. No.7226 of 2009 has now been moved by the petitioners, inter-alia , claiming that the issues raised by them have been favourably answered by the decision dated 3.2.2009 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.10567 of 1993 ( Smt. Santosh Bala v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. ), a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-18.

¶22

No one appears on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the earlier counsel representing the respondents has declined to appear on the ground that he has no instructions.

¶23

Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on merits thereof, more so in the light of the stand taken on behalf of the respondents in their reply, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claims in the light of the above mentioned judgment in Smt. Santosh Bala's case (supra) and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

Till the petitioners' claim is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against them. Suffice it to say that if the petitioners are held liable to pay towards interest etc., the respondents shall grant them a period of two months to deposit the same, however, without prejudice to the petitioners' right to challenge the same.

¶25

C.M. No.7226 of 2009 also stands disposed of.

¶26

Dasti.

¶27

April 24, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge

S.S.Dhaliwal v. Do.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Dhaliwal v. Do.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)Krishan Kumar Vs Lehari Singh

Ram Mehar Vs Jogi Ram and Ors.

(O&M)Rulda Ram Vs Gram Panchayat Bathoi Kalan

Kewal Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Gurmukh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vinod Mittar Vs --D0--