IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. 8134 OF 2008 Date of decision: 18.11.2008 Santosh Rani and another ………Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industiral Development Corporation Limited and another ……..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate for respondents. 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? M.M.Kumar, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondents to deliver the possession of Shed No. 3, Industrial Estate in Roz-Ka-Meo, District Gurgaon allotted to the petitioners vide Letter of intent dated 29.9.95 (AnnexureP-1) and Regular letter of allotment dated 22.5.98 (Annexure P-7). Although, written statement admitting the aforementioned factual position has been filed when the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the outset that the petitioner shall be considered for allotment of a plot of the same size and similar situated as was Shed No. 3, Industrial Estate in Roz-Ka-Meo in District Gurgaon in the Industrial Estate of Manesar and Bawal. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if their case can be considered for the alternative side of equal size as that of Shed No. 3, Industrial Estate in Roz-Ka-Meo in District Gurgaon is considered for allotment in the Industrial Estate Manesar. CWP NO. 8134 OF 2008(O & M) [2] Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of an Industrial Plot in Industrial Estate of a size equivalent to the one which has been allotted to the petitioner earlier i.e. is Shed No. 3, Industrial Estate in Roz-Ka-Meo in District Gurgaon. The needful shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order on the same terms and conditions including the price because the petitioner had deposit the whole amount in the year 1992 to 1997. Disposed of. [M.M.KUMAR] JUDGE [JORA SINGH] JUDGE 18th November, 2008 Skaushik