Disposed

Estate Officer, HUDA and Ors. v. Puneet Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2016CR/4870/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench disposed of three revision petitions involving HUDA favorably. The court ordered restoration of appeals dismissed on limitation grounds without merits adjudication, directing lower courts to follow precedents to ensure parity.

What did the court decide?

Appeals restored to be decided on merits within 05 months; revised petitions disposed subject to deposit of `2,000/- costs each.

Estate Officer, HUDA and Ors. Vs Puneet Kumar — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CR No.4870 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.4870 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:12.08.2016

¶5

The Estate Officer, HUDA and others ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Puneet Kumar ... Respondent

¶8

CR No.4969 of 2009 (O&M)

¶9

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Chela Ram Khanduja and others ... Respondents

¶12

CR No.4321 of 2009 (O&M)

¶13

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ... Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

Karta Ram ... Respondent

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶17

Present:Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioners -HUDA (in all the petitions).

¶18

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondents (in CR No.4969 of 2009).

¶19

Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the respondents (in CR No.4321 and 4870 of 2009).

¶20

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶21

This order of mine shall dispose of three revision petitions

¶22

bearing Nos.4870, 4969 and 4321 of 2009.

¶23

The aforementioned petitions have been filed on the premise

¶24

Savita 2016.09.16 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CR No.4870 of 2009 (O&M) {2}

¶26

that appeal at the instance of the HUDA against the judgment and decree of trial Court, has been dismissed at the threshold being barred by law of limitation. Though the Lower Appellate Court had imposed the costs while condoning the delay but somehow as per the contents of the application, it could not be deposited.

¶27

It is in this background of the matter, the appeals were dismissed and there was no adjudication on merits. The appeals are directed to be restored and the Lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeals in terms of the observations given in RSA No.2915 of 2012 titled as Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal & others vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi, decided on 12.08.2016 so that there is no disparity amongst the similarly situated class, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 05 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶28

Revision petitions stands disposed of subject to deposit of costs

¶29

of `2,000/- in each case.

¶30

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
August 12, 2016
savita
Wheather speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶31

Savita 2016.09.16 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Estate Officer, HUDA and Ors. v. Puneet Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Estate Officer, HUDA and Ors. v. Puneet Kumar

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

Rajwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Nawab Ali & Ors.

Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Prabhu Ram and Others

Rajinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Jaswinder Singh and Ors.

H.U.D.a, Estate Officer, HUDA Kaithal and Ors. Vs Karta Ram

Estate Officer, HUDA and Ors. Vs Jai Kishan

HUDA through Its Administrator and Ors. Vs Avinash Sood and Ors.