IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1955 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 1, 2008 Ved Parkash Sharma …Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of six petitions2. The primary relief claimed in these petitions is for issuance of direction to the respondents to deliver possession of plots which were initially allotted to them at reserve price in their favour by issuing Regular Letters of Allotment in 1994 or subsequently. However, the plots were not in existence. 2. On 6.11.2008, after hearing learned counsel for the parties we have passed a detailed order, which reads thus:- “ This case reveals tell-tale story of the arbitrariness of the respondent authorities. The C.W.P. No. 1955 of 2007 petitioner was allotted a plot on 18.11.2003 and he was asked to deposit Rs. 1,76,250/- within 30 days, which he did. However, plot was not found to be in existence and it was within the boundary wall of Bar Malt Company. The petitioner sent detailed intimation to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector 14, Gurgaon and kept on making representations time and again. On 4.1.2005, the petitioner was asked to deposit the over due amount of Rs. 82,900/-. It has been stated that the petitioner has paid Rs. 9,28,170/-, which constitute 90% of the cost of the plot but the possession thereof has not been given even after expiry of more than three years despite the fact he was assured by letter dated 17.11.2006 that alternate plot is likely to be allotted to him (P-6) after approval from the competent authority. Mr. Arun Walia, learned counsel for the respondents shall seek instructions as to why time bound direction be not issued for allotment of plot of the same size to the petitioner. He shall also inform about the availability of equivalent size of plots. List again on 12.11.2008. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.” 3. In pursuance to order dated 6.11.2008, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record an intimation showing that alternative plots have been carved out for the petitioners in Sector 37-II, Gurgaon, in lieu of the plots allotted to them earlier in Sector 2 C.W.P. No. 1955 of 2007 37-I, Gurgaon, which were of the same size. The demarcation plan was stated to have been approved and approval of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, which was awaited. Accordingly, we issued direction to the Chief Administrator-respondent No. 1 to take effective steps and consider the case sent by the Estate Officer for approval on or before 19.11.2008. Again time was sought and matter was adjourned for today. 4. At the hearing, Mr. Arun Walia, learned counse for the respondents has stated that the approval of the Chief Administrator- respondent No. 1 has been accorded and a mini draw of lot for the petitioners would be held on 4.12.2008. As a consequence of the mini draw of lot, the petitioners would be allotted plots as per the draw. 5. In view of above, these petitions have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. However, we make it clear that the respondents shall be bound by the statement made. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 1, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3 2 1. Chanakya Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another (C.W.P. No. 16306 of 2006). 2. Ved Parkash Sharma v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others (C.W.P. No. 1955 of 2007). 3. Rajender Kumar Bhardwaj v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others (C.W.P. No. 10126 of 2007). 4. Jagdish Gaba v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others (C.W.P. No. 10128 of 2007). 5. Sandeep Sethi v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others (C.W.P. No. 10193 of 2007). 6. M/s Calcutta Rubber Factory Private Ltd. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others (C.W.P. No. 637 of 2008).