IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19796 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 07.12.2011 Ram Avtar and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are five in number, have filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 5.4.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Rohtak, whereby the plots allotted to the petitioners in New Grain Market, Kalanaur, District Rohtak, were ordered to be resumed; as well as the order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-5), passed by the same authority, whereby on remand order passed by the Appellate Authority, the earlier decision dated 5.4.2007 has CWP No. 19796 of 2009 -2- been confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, submits that the similar issues raised by the another allottee in the same grain market, whose plot was also resumed, have been considered and decided by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, in favour of the allottee on payment of remaining due amount, while interfering in appeal filed by him. Learned counsel further submits that vide order dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petitions No. 19244, 19247 of 2009 and 1011 of 2010, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, has been directed to consider claims of the petitioners in those petitions, in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by him in case of another allottee. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 does not dispute the aforesaid factual position and he submits that the petitioners may be permitted to file appeal under Rule 11 (1) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, against the order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-5), and if such appeal is filed within one month, the same can be directed to be decided on merits by the Appellate Authority, in the light of the earlier order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by him in the case of another allottee and the CWP No. 19796 of 2009 -3- subsequent order passed by the Financial Commissioner in furtherance of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed in the aforesaid three writ petitions. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the aforesaid appeal and if any such appeal is filed within a period of one month from today, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law, and in the light of the orders, referred to here-in-above, within a period of three months, after passing a speaking order. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 07, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE