COCP No. 2264 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 2264 of 2009 Date of decision:- 14.10.2010 The Kabir Cooperative House Building Society Limited ......petitioner vs. Ashok Juneja ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The Division Bench of this Court on 16.9.2010 directed the respondents that representation of the petitioner should be decided within a period of four weeks. In the representation, the claim of the petitioner was for possession of alternative site of 18 shops-cum-flats in view of the fact that one acre of land of the petitioner was acquired for development of City Centre Project in Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Development Scheme. The Trust communicated that there is an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission restraining the Improvement Trust from selling, auctioning and transferring the plots situated in the Scheme while deciding the representation, therefore, no action can be taken on such representation at this stage. I do not find that the said stand of the respondent is correct. COCP No. 2264 of 2009 -2- The land of the petitioner was exempted by the State Government on 5.11.1981 under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Consequently, in the lay out plan, the land of the Society was adjusted vide drawing dated 22.7.1985. Subsequently, an agreement was also executed on 21.9.1999. The Improvement Trust decided to develop the City Centre, in its meeting on 23.9.1999. It was found that one acre land of the society falls within the said area. Therefore, the Trust agreed to provide 18 shop-cum-flats in lieu of the land falling within the City Centre Project. It is the said 18 shops-cum- flats, the possession of which is sought in the representation. The Trust has already agreed to provide 18 staff-cum-flats to the petitioner in view of the one acre of land falling within the City Centre. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is operative in respect of the delivery of possession of the said flats. Therefore, the respondent is granted three months time to give effect to the order of the alternative site to the petitioner. In view thereof, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the petition, if the order is not complied with. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 14.10.2010 preeti