IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17903 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4.10.2010. Bijender Kumar and another --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana and Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate present in the Court have been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 to 4 respectively. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioners' land comprising in Khewat No.240/235 and Khewat No.262 situated in the revenue estate of Village Sewah, Tehsil & Distt. Panipat was acquired by the H.U.D.A for development of residential/commercial/industrial sectors. The respondents issued various policies for allotment of plot residential/commercial to the land owners whose land is acquired for development purpose. A number of policies dated 10.9.1987, 9.5.1990, 18.3.1992, 12.3.1993, 28.8.1998, 10.7.2002 and 7.12.2007 have been relied upon by the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been allotted plots in Sector 25, Part-II, Panipat, even though their land was acquired for the development of the CWP. No. 17903 of 2010 -2- aforesaid sector. Petitioners have made a representation (Annexure P-9) in this respect and also served a legal notice (Annexure P-11) but no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representation/legal notice served by the petitioners, referred to above. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to take decision on the representation/legal notice served by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.10.2010. lucky