Disposed

Prem Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2015CWP/11822/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ under Articles 226/227 claiming entitlement to an oustee plot. The High Court refrained from deciding merits but directed the designated respondent to issue a speaking order on the writ petitioner's legal notice within three months after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 15.7.2014 by passing a speaking order and affording an opportunity of hearing within three months.

Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 11822 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 11822 of 2015

¶5

Date of Decision: 29.5.2015

Prem Singh

....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶14

The petitioner through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot to him as per his entitlement under the oustees policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) and notifications dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) and dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-3).

¶15

The petitioner was owner in possession of the land, as detailed in para 2 of the writ petition, situated within the revenue estate of village Sarai Aurangabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Vide notification dated 10.4.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents. Respondent No.1 issued a policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of residential/commercial plots to the oustees in various urban estates set up by the Haryana Urban

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.29 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 11822 of 2015 -2-

¶18

Development Authority. The respondents issued amended policy vide notification dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the respondents amended the policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) vide notification dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). As per the said policies, the petitioner was entitled to a plot under the oustee quota in Sector-6, Jhajjar. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.3 for the allotment of a plot under the oustee quota, but no response has been received. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a legal notice dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.3, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure P-4), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order along with a copy of the legal notice (Annexure P-4).

¶21

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶22

May 29, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

¶23

GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.29 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Prem Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Geeta and Ors. Vs HUDA and Ors.

Sudhir Vs State of Haryana etc.

Chand Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Darshan Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Shamsher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.