CWP No.1876 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1876 of 2008 Date of decision: January 6, 2009. Vishal Dabas ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Shri Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for respondent(s) No.2 to 4. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23.3.2006 (Annexure P-6) whereby allotment of plot No.392, Sector 8, IMT Manesar made on 13.12.2004, has been cancelled on the ground that the said plot already stood allotted in favour of M/s Ishwar Import Export. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus for allotment of the said plot and/or any other vacant plot in his favour. In response to the notice of motion, respondents No.2 to 4 have CWP No.1876 of 2008 -: 2 :- filed their counter affidavit in which it is averred that earlier the plot in question was inadvertently allotted to the petitioner as the same had already been allotted to M/s Ishwar Import Export. The affidavit, however, states that the respondents are ready and willing to allot plot No.310, Sector 8 IMT Manesar which is of the same size, though subject to various conditions including that “the aforesaid allotment shall be subject to the enhanced allotment rate of Rs.9,000/- per square meter”. It may be mentioned here that previous plot No.392 was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2500/- per sq. meter. The petitioner has no objection against allotment of the above mentioned alternative plot. He , however, contends that he is entitled to be allotted the same at the rate at which the earlier plot bearing No.392 was allotted to him. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the petitioner is liable to pay for the alternative plot at the revised rates. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties for some time and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's claim for allotment of the alternative plot at the original rate of allotment is fully justified. In fact, the issue is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6246 of 2008 (Gurdial Singh Ahluwalia v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and others), decided on 2.12.2008 dealt with an identical controversy and has held as follows:- “In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to change the price of the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2500/- per square meter i.e. At CWP No.1876 of 2008 -: 3 :- the rate when plot No.184, measuring 1800 sq. meter, Sector 8, IMT Manesar was allotted to him on 13.12.2004. The respondents would also adjust the amount which was deposited by him 13.12.2004 and 10.1.2005. If the respondents find that some amount paid by the petitioner is in excess then the same be refunded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” For the reasons assigned by this Court in Gurdial Singh Ahluwalia's case (supra), this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allot the alternative plot bearing No.310, Sector 8, IMT Manesar @ Rs.2500/- per sq. meter, i.e., at the rate at which plot No.392 was allotted to him. The needful shall be done within a period of two months. January 06, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge