Petitioner sought writ directing allotment of alternate plot. Court, without opining on merits, directed respondent to decide on issued letter via speaking order within three months.
Respondent No.3 to decide on the letter dated 17.2.2016 within three months via speaking order after opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CWP-5423-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5423-2018
Date of Decision: 7.3.2018
Pankaj Dewan
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
PRESENT: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
CWP-5423-2018 -2-
receipt of the said report, officer of possession would be given. Vide letter dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-5) offered possession of the plot in question. The petitioner was directed to pay an amount of 11,37,016/- as enhanced compensation vide letter dated 11.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) which he deposited vide receipts dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure P-7 Colly). On coming to know that the plot in question had gone under litigation, the petitioner vide letter dated 1.6.2012 (Annexure P-8) requested respondent No.2 to allot an alternate plot and refund the enhancement cost with interest. The said letter was sent through e-mail on 3.6.2012 (Annexure P-9) to respondents No.2 and 3. Respondent No.5 vide notices dated 28.8.2012 (Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively) directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of 3,90,815/- and 6,30,276/- as an additional price of enhanced compensation. Respondent No.2 framed a policy dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P-12) regarding the exchange of plots. Ultimately, the petitioner was allotted an alternate plot No.1016-A, Sector 57, Gurugram on the same terms and conditions in the draw held on 19.2.2014 and he was informed vide letter dated 4.7.2014 (Annexure P-13) in this regard. The petitioner vide letter dated 14.9.2014 (Annexure P-14) requested respondent No.2 for login ID and Password for viewing the status of the alternate plot and the account statements. Respondent No.2 vide notice dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure P-15) demanded an amount of 24,55,983/- on account of enhanced compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-16) respondent No.5 with copy to respondent No.3 through postal receipts (Annexure P-17) to adjust the amount already paid against the disputed plot and offer the possession of the alternate plot. Respondent No.5 vide letter dated 10.1.2016 (Annexure P-
Gurbachan Singh 2018.03.12 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-5423-2018 -3-
Gurbachan Singh 2018.03.12 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-5423-2018
-4-
present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the letter dated 17.2.2016 (Annexure P-21), 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 the certified copy of the order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
March 7, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes
Gurbachan Singh 2018.03.12 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the authority should issue a speaking order and decide on the petitioner’s request for an alternate plot within three months.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj Dewan
State of Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Anupinder Singh Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
