Disposed

Shradhanand and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2014CWP/19916/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by persons claiming eligibility for residential plots under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna. The Court directed respondents to verify the petitioners' claims and decide within four months without expressing any views on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos.2 & 3 to verify petitioners' claim and take an appropriate decision within four months.

Shradhanand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.19916 of 2014 Date of Decision: September 24, 2014

¶3

Shradanand and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

¶9

Present : Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at

¶16

this stage.

¶17

On our asking, Mr.S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.

¶18

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶19

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, respondent Nos.1 & 2 need not to file any counter-reply nor respondent No.3 be served as no order prejudicial to the interest of these respondents is being passed.

¶20

The petitioners are residents of village Baburpur, District Gurgaon. They claim to be the persons living below

¶21

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.10.14 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No.19916 of 2014

¶23

[2]

¶24

poverty line and/or belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Their grievance is that though they are fully eligible for allotment of residential plots of 100 square yards under the 'Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna' which the State Government has decided to implement vide memo dated 1.2.2008, the respondents are not considering their claim. It appears that an exercise to identify the eligible persons was undertaken and the petitioners were included in that list but the follow up action by Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon or the Gram Panchayat of their village is still awaited.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have placed reliance on a Government Policy which, according to them, has not been given effect, we dispose of this writ petition, however without expressing any views on the merits, with a direction to respondent nos.2 & 3 to verify the claim of the petitioners as contained in this petition and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Ordered accordingly. Dasti.

¶27

[SURYA KANT]

¶28

September 24, 2014 [JASPAL SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶29

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.10.14 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Shradhanand and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shradhanand and Ors. v. State of Haryana & 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

Union of India Vs Faqir Chand and Ors.

Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Khem Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balbir Singh & Ors. Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala & Ors.

Union of India and Others Vs Central Administratative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Another

Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.