Disposed

Mam Raj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2014CWP/9863/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought allotment of a plot under the oustees quota following land acquisition. The Court directed respondent authorities to consider the claim per relevant policies and pass a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's claim regarding oustees quota allotment and pass a speaking order within three months.

Mam Raj Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.9863 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 21, 2014

¶3

Mam Raj Singh versus

¶4

State of Haryana and others

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶8

Present Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondentauthorities to allot him a plot under the 'Oustees quota'. It is averred that his land fully described in para No.2 of the writ petition and situated within the revenue estate of village Tigra, District Gurgaon, was acquired by the State of Haryana for the development of Sector road of Sectors 58 to 67 in Urban Estate, Gurgaon and Award was passed on 12.08.2009. The petitioner submits that in terms of the Government policies issued from time to time, he falls in the category of oustees and is entitled to allotment of a residential plot under the Oustees quota. The petitioner is said to have applied for such allotment on 29.10.2013 alongwith earnest money of Rs.50,000/-. Since no decision was taken by the respondentauthorities on his application, he has approached this Court.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought by him, we dispose

¶16

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.26 12:15 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.9863 of 2014 [2]

¶18

of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the above-mentioned claim of the petitioner in accordance with law/Government/HUDA policies framed from time to time and decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶19

Ordered accordingly.

¶20

Dasti.

¶21

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 21, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶22

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.26 12:15 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Mam Raj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mam Raj Singh 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

Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors.

Mitlesh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Metro Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pyare Lal Vs Haryana State

Balwan Singh Lohan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Balbir Singh and Sons. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.