Allowed

Sat Parkash v. Estate Officer Pb. Urban Dev. Authority Mohali & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2013CWP/23765/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition quashing orders resuming a residential plot allotment. The court held that since the mis-use leading to resumption was caused by a former tenant successfully evicted by the petitioner, the allotment should be restored, adhering to Full Bench parameters. The disposal was subject to depositing any prescribed restoration charges.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders of resumption were quashed, restoring the residential plot allotment in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit of restoration charges.

Sat Parkash Vs Estate Officer Pb. Urban Dev… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.23765 of 2012 Date of Decision : April 01, 2013

Sat Parkash

.....Petitioner

versus

The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development Authority & others .....Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶8

Present : Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Addl AG, for respondent Nos.3&4.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Mr.Shekhar Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 on instructions from Bhag Singh, J.E., states that the premises in question has been visited and no mis-use has been found. The petitioner undertakes that the subject residential premises shall not be mis-used in future by him or by the tenants, if any.

¶15

Since the mis-use of the premises which led to its resumption, is admittedly attributable to the tenant who was in occupation of the house and for whose eviction the petitioner took all possible steps and finally succeeded to throw him out of the house through the court proceedings including criminal prosecution, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case to set-aside the order of resumption and restore the allotment

¶16

CWP No.23765 of 2012

¶17

[2]

¶18

of the subject property in favour of the petitioner. In our considered view, the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Dheera Singh versus U.T. Chandigarh Administration and others, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 970 wherein the pre-requisites for initiation of resumption proceedings on account of mis-use of a premises have been laid down, are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶19

For the reasons afore-stated, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned orders dated 6.11.1997, 14.7.1999, 9.7.2001 and 23.10.2012 (Annexures P-1, P-2, P-5 & P-13, respectively). Resultantly, the allotment of residential plot No.602, Phase-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali shall stand restored in favour of the petitioner, however, subject to deposit of restoration charges, if any prescribed under rules and in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

April 01, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Sat Parkash v. Estate Officer Pb. Urban Dev. Authority Mohali & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sat Parkash v. Estate Officer Pb. Urban Dev. Authority Mohali & Ors.

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

Parveen Vs State of Haryana

Raju @ Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gf Toll Road Private Limited Vs Aravali Truck Owner Association and Ors.

Kanwaljit Kaur and Ors. Vs Amrik Singh and Ors.

Lachhmi Devi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.