Civil Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 4 , 2011 Raghuvir Saini .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The land owned by the petitioner situated in Sectors 13-17, Panipat, was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a plot in the category of oustees, but the allotment was not made to him. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which was allowed on 26.9.2001 and the respondents were directed to allot two plots to the petitioner under outstees quota. In pursuance to the direction, the petitioner was asked to deposit 25% of the costs. However, the floating rate in the year 2005 was charged instead of the rate Civil Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010 -2- prevalent in the year 1992 when the award was passed. The Chief Administrator HUDA directed the Estate Officer to charge rate of the plot from the petitioner as per condition No.(vi) of the policy dated 18.3.1992. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation for re-determining the price of the allotted plot. When the said representation was not decided, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.2157 of 2005 before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to decide the same. The Estate Officer rejected the representation on the ground that the petitioner did not apply in the year 1992. The Estate Officer has, accordingly, held that the case of the petitioner is covered by the policy dated 12.3.1993. A complaint was also filed before the District Forum, Panipat. This complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that HUDA authorities have charged the rate as per the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.13548 of 2001, decided on 18.9.2002. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition to say that the said judgment can not apply to the case of the petitioner. When this case came up for hearing before this Court on 20.1.2011, counsel for the petitioner was required to make submissions whether the order Annexure P-9 passed by the District Forum, Panipat would stand in his way to invoke the writ jurisdiction or not. Hence, the petitioner has failed before the District Forum, the said order cannot be nullified by any order passed by this Court through the present writ petition. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to challenge the order Civil Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010 -3- passed by the District Forum. The counsel submits that he will face difficulty as the limitation for filing the Appeal has gone lost. Dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner would be at liberty to move application seeking condonation of delay in filing the the Appeal against Annexure P-9 on the ground that he was pursuing the remedy before this Court. May 04, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010 -4-