IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17288 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 15.09.2011 Shrimati and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who allege that their land was acquired vide notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and with regard to the acquired land, an award was made on 5.11.1995, have filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to allot them a plot according to the policies of the Haryana Urban Development Authority dated 18.3.1992 and 12.3.1993 being oustees from the acquired land. It is the further case of the petitioners that they had made a representation in this regard, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition, but the same has not been considered by the authorities till date. CWP No. 17288 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this Court in CWP No. 19927 of 2009, titled as “Sandeep Versus State of Haryana and others” and CWP No. 1605 of 2010, titled as “Mahinder Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another”, decided on May 16, 2011, has considered the policy and aspect of making applications with regard to allotment of plots under the oustee quota framed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Learned counsel further argued that the said representation till date is pending and the same has not been considered by the authorities in light of the said judgment. He submits that at this stage, the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat, to consider their representation as per law and in accordance with the aforesaid decision, expeditiously. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, without issuing notice to the other side, as it will un-necessary delay the matter, and direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and the law, expeditiously, within a reasonable time. Ordered accordingly. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 15, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE