IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 19203 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010. Amit Wadhwa --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana and Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate present in the Court have been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 to 3 respectively. 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. Plot No. 1002, Sector 46-II, Faridabad measuring 90 sq. meters was allotted to Mam Chand Verma on free hold basis by respondent no.3 vide allotment letter dated 9.1.1991. The tentative price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 83,300/-. It is stated that the entire amount stands deposited, however, possession could not be delivered at the relevant time. The original allottee was informed vide memo dated 16.12.1998 that due to some unavoidable circumstances/litigation/encroachment at site the possession could not be delivered. In view of the above, the respondents allotted another plot bearing No. 860-P in Sector 45, Faridabad in lieu of the original plot to Mam Chand Verma. The possession of this plot also could CWP. No. 19203 of 2010 -2- not be delivered. Mam Chand transferred the plot in favour of Surinder Chaudhary, who further transferred it to Smt. Anita Sahni wife of Sh. B.D. Sahni vide memo dated 14.12.1999. Smt. Anita Sahni further transferred the plot to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 18.12.2008 and even respondent no.3 also re-allotted the plot in favour of the petitioner vide memo dated 6.1.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the possession of the plot has not been delivered to him despite a valid transfer. The petitioner served two legal notices (Annexures P-6 & P-7) but without any response. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the legal notices served by the petitioner, referred to above. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3to take decision on the legal notices served by 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 27.10.2010. lucky