IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9753 of 1988 Date of decision: 08.02.2010 Dharamvir Sahni ....Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejinder S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition is a sequel to an earlier action for the petition in Civil Writ Petition No.4282 of 1987 seeking for cancellation of an allotment made already on 22nd August, 1986. It appears that this order of allotment was purported to have been cancelled by the proceedings of the respondent dated 01.07.1987 and this cancellation it was that the High Court set aside in Civil Writ Petition No.4282 of 1987 and directed the property to be delivered back to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner contends in the writ petition that after the directions from the High Court, the petitioner had represented for implementation of instructions for possession of the plot originally Civil Writ Petition No.9753 of 1988 - 2 - allotted namely of Plot No.156, Sector 2, Ambala City. The contention of the writ petitioner was that he had paid the initial installment of 25% of the tentative price at the time of allotment and paid subsequent second yearly installment of Rs.2891.25 on 02.06.1988. The writ petitioner complains that the non-delivery of the possession of the property in spite of an order of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4282 of 1987 and the payment of installments by the petitioner was unjustified. 3. The case is of the year 1988 and at the time, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. If the property has already been delivered possession to the petitioner, there would be no need for fresh adjudication. If, however, the property has not been delivered, the same shall be done by the respondents on payment of the balance of sale consideration with interest and penalty that the rules, terms and conditions of the original allotment provide for. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. NB: The counsel turned up later to record his name but has not details to furnish about the present status about possession or payment. The order as made in his presence shall stand. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.02.2010. sanjeev