Disposed

Manit Malhotra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2012CWP/16242/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the allotment and subsequent construction of shops on a social institution land. The Court directed the Improvement Trust to decide pending representations within three months, ensuring an opportunity for hearing and verification of building plan sanctions, before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondent No.3 to decide representations within three months after hearing petitioners and respondent No.5.

Manit Malhotra & Ors. Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.16242 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.16242 of 2012 Date of decision: 23.08.2012

¶5

Manit Malhotra and others

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

……Respondents

¶10

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶11

Present: Ms.Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶13

It is grievance of the petitioners that land measuring 1 kanal 8 marla 40 sq.feet was allotted to District Congress Committee (Urban) at Jalandhar in the year 1973-74 as a social institution. To say so, reliance is placed upon a document marked Annexure P2 dated 21.7.1976. It is averred that in contravention of the conditions of allotment letter, on the main road, without leaving any parking space, many shops have been constructed. For construction of those shops, it is also not sure whether any building plan was got sanctioned or not. It is also stated that conveyance deed has not yet been executed in favour of the alltotees. By stating their grievance, the petitioners have already sent two representations dated 11.1.2012 and 2.6.2012 where upon no decision has been taken. In this writ petition it is prayer of the petitioners that a direction be issued to the authorities to decide those representations as per law.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, directions are issued to respondent No.3, who is presently exercising the powers of Chairman Improvement Trust, to take up and decide those

¶15

CWP No.16242 of 2012 2

¶16

representations as per law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.5. It is further directed that when passing an order on the above referred to representations, respondent No.3 shall specifically mention whether for raising construction of the shops on the road side any building plan was got sanctioned or not and what was the original plan sanctioned so far as construction of rest of the building is concerned. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this CWP is disposed of.

¶18

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice 23.08.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) gk Judge

Manit Malhotra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manit Malhotra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartar Kaur & Anr. Vs Chd Admn. & Ors.

Rattan Chand Vs UOI and Ors.

M/S Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs Chandigarh Administration, Ut and Others

Navinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Haryana