IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 16073 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010. Deepak Gupta --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. 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. Land of the petitioner situated within the revenue estate of village Kheri Nangal, Tehsil & District Panipat was acquired by the respondents vide award dated 11.4.2002 for development of Sector 29 Part- II, Panipat. Under the policy of the H.U.D.A land owners/oustees, are also entitled to a plot depending upon the quantum of land acquired. In response to the public notice issued by respondent no.4, inviting applications for allotment of residential plots for general public as well as oustees, the petitioner also submitted his application (Annexure P-2). The aforesaid application was followed by a legal notice dated 14.3.2007 which was replied to by the respondents vide memo dated 13.4.2007 communicating the petitioner that his claim could not be considered for want of necessary CWP. No. 16073 of 2010 -2- documents/information. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 11017 of 2007. This petition was disposed of with certain directions including a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner. As a consequence of the aforesaid direction, the claim of the petitioner was sent to Estate Officer, H.U.D.A, Panipat and petitioner was advised to apply on the prescribed proforma along with the supporting documents and earnest money under the oustees' policy afresh vide Annexure P-17. The petitioner submitted fresh application for allotment of the plot (Annexure P-20). This application is pending consideration with the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that similarly situated oustees have been allotted plots as is evident from Annexure P-25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Annexure P-25, referred to above. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation/application (Annexure P-20) of the petitioner, 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 petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.9.2010. lucky