Quashed

Jagdish Chander Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2013CWP/17624/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition by quashing orders that cancelled a shop allotment and initiated eviction, after the petitioner deposited the demanded balance consideration. The court directed the Trust to provide a Statement of Accounts within two weeks and ordered a refund of any excess within one month.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of orders dated 26.11.2009, 21.12.2011, and 24.07.2012; liberty to apply for Statement of Accounts within two weeks; refund of excess within one month.

Jagdish Chander Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

��

��

�� 

CWP No.17624 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2013

¶6

¶7

Jagdish Chander Sharma

¶8

. . . . Petitioner

¶9

VS.

¶10

State of Punjab & Ors.

. . . . Respondents

��

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

¶16

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

¶19

Present: Mr. OS Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner

¶20

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. AG Punjab

¶21

Mr. JS Toor, Advocate for respondents No.4&5

¶22

¶23

��

¶24

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.17624 & 18867 of 2012 as common issues are involved. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.17624 of 2012.

¶25

(2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 26.11.2009, 21.12.2011 and 24.07.2012 (Annexures P5, P6 & P7, respectively) whereby shop No.72 Leak Wala Talab, Near Bus Stand Batala, allotted to the petitioner in an open auction on 07.08.1996 by the Improvement Trust, Batala, has been resumed and the allotment cancelled due to non-deposit of the balance sale consideration. The

¶26

��

¶27

��

¶28

respondents have meanwhile initiated eviction proceedings also and the subject shop was sealed.

¶29

(3). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court.

¶30

(4). In view of one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that an ex parte eviction order was passed or that the interest component has been arbitrarily calculated, we protected his possession vide order dated September 10, 2012 subject to his depositing the balance sale consideration along with interest/penal interest as prescribed in the allotment letter.

¶31

(5). Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust states that the petitioner has deposited the due amount though he still disputes the interest rate.

¶32

(6). Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the restoration as well as interest component have been charged from the petitioner arbitrarily and contrary to the terms and conditions of the allotment.

¶33

(7). Learned counsel for the respondent-Trust on the other hand states that since the petitioner has deposited the due amount, the Trust has no objection against setting aside the impugned order(s). (8). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the afore-stated fair stand taken on behalf of the Trust as also in the light of the fact that the petitioner has deposited the demanded amount, we set aside the order dated 26.11.2009, 21.12.2011 and 24.07.2012 (Annexures P5, P6 & P7, respectively) and dispose of the

¶34

��

¶35

��

¶36

writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to apply for Statement of Accounts which the Executive Officer of the Trust is directed to supply to the petitioner within two weeks of the receipt of the application. In case the petitioner has any objection against determination of the recoverable amount or interest/restoration charges or if the petitioner has paid the amount under our orders in excess to what he was required to deposit, the petitioner shall be entitled to represent in this regard and such a representation shall be considered by the Improvement Trust Authorities objectively. Suffice it observe that the excess amount, if found any, shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month thereafter.

(9). Disposed of.

�� 

�!"�"! #�

$%&'()�&'*+,(-

�� 

Jagdish Chander Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chander Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Aquafil Spa Vs Chinar Forge Ltd.

B M School Pvt. Ltd. Vs Registrar of Companies

Perfect Agro Mills Private Limited Vs --------------------

Jai Bharat Gum and Chemicals Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Tranz Infotech Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi and Ors.

Rajinder Singh Malli Vs State of Punjab