Petitioners sought allotment of residential plots under a 1974 policy despite earlier writ petitions being dismissed on merits. The Court held that unchallenged dismissal orders bound them, and representations or legal notices cannot extend limitation. Writ petition dismissed.
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.
130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20713 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.08.2024
Devender and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate and Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate and Ms. Naina Jindal, Advocate for MC, Gurugram.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
The petitioners seek the allotment of 100 Sq. Yards residential plot to each of them, in view of the policy instructions issued by respondent No.1 dated 28.01.1974 (Annexure P-1). The claim is based on the order passed earlier in Civil Writ Petition No.11070 of 2000 on 11.12.2001 (Annexure P-7) wherein direction had been issued to take final decision in the matter and to allot alternative plots to the petitioners and the other eligible Harijans as per the Government policy. Consideration has also been sought to decide the legal notice dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-19).
NEETU RANI 2024.08.31 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CWP No.20713 of 2024 -2-
Petition No.19301 of 2004 titled as “Davinder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others” wherein directions were issued on 26.08.2008 (Annexure P-11) to consider their claim as raised in the legal notice dated 10.04.2002 in terms of the policy instructions dated 28.01.1974. The Deputy Commissioner at one point of time vide the order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-12) found that the petitioners were not in the list of eligible persons and therefore, rejected their claim as such while noticing that the Gram Panchayat had ceased to exist after its inclusion in the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon vide Govt. Notification dated 02.06.2008. It is also noticed that the policy dated 28.01.1974 ceased to apply in the urban areas. The petitioners, then, approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.5939 of 2009 which was dismissed on 16.11.2009, along-with bunch of cases and lead case of which was Civil Writ Petition No.9180 of 2009 (Annexure P-14). Letters Patent Appeal No.232 of 2011 was allowed on the ground that the matter could not be disposed of in a consolidated manner without pleadings and therefore, it was remitted to learned Single Judge on 24.05.2011 (Annexure P-15).
NEETU RANI 2024.08.31 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CWP No.20713 of 2024 -3-
“ The name of the petitioners were not included by the Gram Panchayat and they were not in the list of eligible persons approved by the Panchayat Samiti vide its resolution dated 25.03.1996. Moreover, after allotting the land in the year 1996 by the Gram Panchayat, this village has been included in the M.C, Gurgaon on 02.06.2008. Now the policy dated 28.01.1974 is not applicable to the M.C
In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4, reference has been made to a policy dated 01.02.2008 (R-I) which was made regarding implementation of scheme giving 100 sq yards of plot to the families of SC/BC categories in the MC. The team comprising of Executive Engineer, Asstt. Engineer, Junior Engineer and Naib Tehsildar along with Patwari was constituted to examine the case of the petitioners for allotment of plots in question. The report of the team of M.C Gurgaon also contained that petitioners are not eligible for 100 sq yards plots under the relevant scheme as their names did not find place in the Survey List 2007 as well as the List 2007 supplied by the office of ADC, Gurgaon. At present, no land is available with the M.C. Gurgaon
In view of the written statement, the writ petition is dismissed.”
A. Hamid Padvekar vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and
NEETU RANI 2024.08.31 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CWP No.20713 of 2024 -4-
others, (2009) 3 SCC 281 that the principle of deciding the representation would only prolong the litigation and repeated representations as such cannot extend the limitation.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 27.08.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No
NEETU RANI 2024.08.31 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners were entitled to allotment of 100 sq. yard residential plots under the policy dated 28.01.1974 despite prior dismissal of their earlier writ petitions.
Whether repeated representations and a legal notice could revive claims barred by limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govt. of India vs. P. VenkateshRelied on¶4
2019 (15) SCC 613 · Who else cites this
Devender and others
State of Haryana and others
G.S. Sandhawalia
Meenakshi I. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
