C.O.C.P. No. 249 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 249 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 18, 2009 Narender Singh ....Petitioner Versus T.C.Gupta and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) On September 29, 2008, learned counsel for the respondents had sought time to obtain instructions about the rectification in the order of allotment regarding the location and price of the plots, which were to be given to the oustees. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to an e-mail sent by Mr. Anil Aggarwal, District Attorney/LR, HUDA, Panchkula, wherein it stands mentioned that it has been decided by the competent authority that the rates at which the outstees' plots were advertised would be charged from them. It has further been intimated that the allottee had deposited the earnest money on January 30, 2002. The approved rates of Sectors 31 and 32, Gurgaon, for the year 2001-02 were Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard (Nodal price) and Rs.5,500/- per sq. yard for one kanal (10% above the nodal price). C.O.C.P. No. 249 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the respondents has also stated that the total land measuring 32 kanals 17 marlas of the petitioner was acquired for Sectors 32 , 44, 45 and 46 of Gurgaon. The land measuring 24 kanals 17 marlas of the petitioner was acquired only for Sector 32 of Gurgaon vide award No. 11 dated 16.3.1989 and rest of 8 kanals for Sectors 44, 45 and 46 of Gurgaon vide award No. 8 dated 23.3.1993. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent-authority allotted plot No. 190 in Sectors 31-32A, Gurgaon, measuring 420 sq. mtrs., adjacent to Sector-32, Gurgaon, whereas Sector 43 is far away from Sector 32 and for Sectors 44, 45 and 46 only 8 kanals land of the petitioner was acquired. In view of the above, the order dated 6.7.2004 passed by this Court stands complied with and, therefore, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 18, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1