CWP No.2744 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 8.10.2010 M/s Vinay Lakra ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Urban Development Authority and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Amit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Arun Hundal, Advocate for Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner applied for allotment of Industrial Plot in Sector 18, Gurgaon in response to the Brochure issued by the respondents. The petitioner deposited the earnest money at the time of making application. The petitioner was called for interview. On the basis of the interview, the Allotment Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment of plot measuring 450 square meters in Sector 18, Industrial Area CWP No.2744 of 2005 (O&M) 2 at Gurgaon. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 30.7.2004 regarding recommendation for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. meters in Sector 18, Gurgaon and giving consent for payment of the difference in case of increase in rates and any other dues as per HUDA policy. The petitioner gave his consent and also agreed to pay the enhanced amount vide application dated 5.8.2004. The petitioner was later asked to pay the enhanced price which amount has also been paid by the petitioner. Respondents, however, vide letter dated 11.10.2004 further enhanced the price to Rs.7500/- per sq. mtr. The petitioner was asked to deposit the balance amount. The petitioner even deposited this amount. It is stated that the respondents further increased the rates. Ultimately, vide lett6er dated 10.3.2005, the respondents cancelled the allotment of the plot. The petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment. When this petition was filed, this Court vide interim order dated 3.4.2006 permitted the petitioner to deposit 15% of the remaining earnest money and direction was issued for taking further steps in terms of the allotment. When the interim direction was not complied with, contempt petition was filed before this Court which came to be disposed of on 29.7.2010, in view of the offer of possession issued by the respondent- HUDA. Learned counsel for respondents has placed on record copy of letter CWP No.2744 of 2005 (O&M) 3 dated 6.10.2010 whereby offer of possession has been made to the petitioner in implementation of the interim order. Through the medium of CM Nos.4518-19/2010, the petitioner has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 18.5.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6836 of 2005 and has prayed for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Notice of the CM was issued to the other side. Mr. Hundal has fairly accepted that the controversy is covered by the aforesaid judgment. On consideration of the various facts, a Division Bench of this court vide the aforesaid judgment passed following directions:- “..... As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present petition. The order/communication dated March 10, 2005 (Annexure P.10) issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, respondent no.3 is set aside. The respondents are directed to hand over the possession of the plot in question to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be required to re-deposit the amount of 15% which has been refunded by the Estate Officer alongwith communication dated March 10, 2005, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. On receipt of the aforesaid payment, the possession of the plot in question shall be handed over to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. The petitioner, however, shall be liable to make the remaining payment in accordance with the stipulations contained in the allotment letter. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. CWP No.2744 of 2005 (O&M) 4 Sd/-Viney Mittal, Judge sd/- H.S.Bhalla, Judge” Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8207/2008 filed against the judgment passed by this court in other connected matter also came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.2.2009 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Division Bench having attained finality and the case being covered, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforesaid writ petition by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Since the possession of the plot has already been delivered to the petitioner in implementation of the interim direction, the same is hereby confirmed. Disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.10. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5