CWP No.18674 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18674 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 **** Nirmal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BN Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. H.S. Brar, learned Addl. AG Punjab and Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate accept notices on behalf of respondents No.1&2 and the Municipal Council, Ludhiana, respectively. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply at this stage. (2). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to execute the Conveyance Deed in respect of the Plot No.190, 191 and 192 situated near Village Giaspura, District Ludhiana and hand over the vacant possession thereof to him. CWP No.18674 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). According to the petitioner, the above-stated three plots were purchased by him in the year 1996 from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana in an open auction. However, despite depositing the entire dues, the possession of these plots have not been handed over to him. It is further averred that on repeated visits the petitioner was informed that he will be given the possession of alternative plots but even that offer has not seen the light of the day. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to give possession of the above-stated plots and/or give alternative plots in lieu thereof, at the same rate on which these three plots were allotted to him in the open auction. (4). In this regard, the petitioner has represented the authorities time and again including vide representation dated 22.06.2009 and 03.08.2009 (Annexure P4 and P6, respectively). (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie the claim of the petitioner appears to be fair and justified, however, without expressing any final view on the merits of the case at this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a CWP No.18674 of 2010.doc - 3 – direction to respondent No.3 to consider the above- noticed claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and if so required by passing a speaking order within the stipulated period. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE