Disposed

Satpal Yadav and Others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2017CWP/27851/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the departmental notice issuing 24-hour notice for sealing shops was jurisdictionally flawed as there was an underlying court order directing status quo and plot allotment. Court granted liberty to petitioners to endeavor status quo. Permission to approach High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to avail of previous order maintaining status quo; authorities to decide representation on sealing within two weeks.

Satpal Yadav and Others Vs Haryana Urban… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 27851 of 2017 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 07. 12. 2017

¶3

Sat pal Yadav and ot her s

¶4

…. . Pet i t i oner s

¶5

ver sus

¶6

Har yana Ur ban Devel opment Aut hor i t y and ot her s

¶7

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE HARI NDER SI NGH SI DHU

¶8

Pr esent : Mr . Sandeep Par kash Chahar , Advocat e f or t he pet i t i oner s

¶9

S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al )

¶10

The pet i t i oner s have chal l enged t he not i ce dat ed 04. 12. 2017 ( Annexur e P/ 8) whi ch st at es t hat t he pet i t i oner s have i l l egal l y const r uct ed shops upon t hei r l and whi ch i s a r esi dent i al ar ea. The not i ce r equest s t he pet i t i oner s t o st op t he commer ci al use wi t hi n 24 hour s f ai l i ng whi ch t he depar t ment woul d seal t he di sput ed shops. The l ast sent ence i n t he not i ce r eads: “ I f t her e i s any cour t case/ st ay or der wi t h r egar d t o t hi s l and and wi t h r egar d t o i t t hen t hi s of f i ce be i nf or med i mmedi at el y. ”

¶11

The pet i t i oner s cont end t hat t he par t i es ar e bound t o mai nt ai n st at us- quo i n r espect of t he pr oper t y i n vi ew of an or der and j udgment dat ed 07. 11. 2013 i n CWP No. 8733 of 2009 f i l ed by t hem. As per t he sai d or der and j udgment , t he pet i t i oner s wer e t o be al l ot t ed t hr ee pl ot s of 10 mar l as each. The pet i t i oner s cont end t hat t he pl ot s have not been al l ot t ed. The or der and j udgment i nt er al i a di r ect ed t he par t i es t her ei n

¶12

Parkash Chand 2017.12.11 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CWP- 27851- 2017

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

t o mai nt ai n st at us- quo t i l l t he al l ot ment of pl ot s t o each pet i t i oner . The Di vi si on Bench st at ed t hat on t he al l ot ment of t he sai d pl ot s, t he pet i t i oner s woul d be r equi r ed t o vacat e t he r emai ni ng l and and i f need be demol i sh t he exi st i ng st r uct ur es t o ensur e t hat t he r espondent - aut hor i t i es ar e abl e t o devel op and ut i l i se i t f or r esi dent i al pl ot s and f or const r uct i on of 10 met er s wi de r oad. As we ment i oned ear l i er , t he sai d not i ce cal l s upon t he pet i t i oner s t o i nf or m t he aut hor i t i es i f t her e i s any cour t case/ st ay or der . The pet i t i oner s ought t o have done so r at her t han f i l i ng t hi s pet i t i on. They ar e at l i ber t y even now t o avai l of t hat l i ber t y and dr aw t he at t ent i on of t he r espondent s t o t he sai d or der and j udgment dat ed 07. 11. 2013.

¶16

The pet i t i on i s accor di ngl y di sposed of by gr ant i ng t he pet i t i oner s l i ber t y as af or esai d. The or der mer el y st at es t hat t he pr oper t i es woul d be seal ed. I t does not st at e t hat t he pr oper t i es woul d be demol i shed. The aut hor i t i es shal l t ake a deci si on on t he pet i t i oner s’ appl i cat i on/ r epr esent at i on, i f any, wi t hi n t wo weeks of t he r ecei pt t her eof . Li ber t y t o appl y.

¶17

( S. J. VAZI FDAR) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶18

( HARI NDER SI NGH SI DHU) JUDGE

¶19

1. 2017 par kash

¶20

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶21

Parkash Chand 2017.12.11 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satpal Yadav and Others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Yadav and Others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others

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

Adel Landmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Arksan Private Limited Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Ram and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Gupta Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors.

Prem Nath Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.