Civil Writ Petition No. 6013 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 6013 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 Smt. Shanti Devi (Widow) and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioners have been allotted 527.77 sq. yards plot at Dugri Road, Phase-II, Ludhiana, at the rate of Rs.7,450/- per square yards. Petitioners are relying upon Annexure P3, a judgment rendered by this Court in Subedar Anokh Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 11871 of 1997, decided on 7.1.1998) and Annexure P8, a judgment rendered by this Court in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 8285 of 2000, decided on 18.10.2000) to contend that the plot should have been allotted to the petitioners like Sucha Singh, Rattan Singh, Anokh Singh and others at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per square yards. For this relief, petitioners earlier Civil Writ Petition No. 6013 of 2008 2 approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11644 of 2003. There too in the writ petition a prayer was made that petitioners should be allotted plot at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per square yard. That writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by passing a following order:- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-PUDA states that the application for the allotment of a plot may be taken as transferred in the name of the legal heirs of the petitioner, Inderjit as spelt out in the application. He also states that in the light of para 6 of the written statement of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the petitioner's case shall be considered in the draw of lots against plots reserved for his category in Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, to be held in the future. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that a plot can be allotted to the petitioner as had been allotted to the persons similarly placed as the petitioner. We are unable to extend benefit to the petitioner in the light of the above facts and the fact that he has given his option as per Annexure R-2. The writ petition is disposed of in the above manner”. The matter not only end here, a review petition was filed bearing R.A. No. 290 of 2004. In the review petition, in paras 8 and 14, a Civil Writ Petition No. 6013 of 2008 3 specific grievance was made that petitioners cannot be dealt with differently and the same rate ought to be applied i.e. Rs.1,400/- per square yard qua them as was applied in the matter of allotment of plot to Subedar Anokh Singh and Swaran Singh. On observation made by this Court that a plea having raised before the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 11644 of 2003 and Review Application No. 290 of 2004, can petitioners persist with present writ petition, counsel for the petitioners submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to take recourse to alternative remedy including filing of fresh review in Civil Writ Petition No. 11644 of 2003, in accordance with law. As prayed, present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 27, 2009 “DK”