CWP No.482 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.482 of 1991 (O&M) Dated: 4th August, 2011 Birdi Construction Company, 3196, Sector 31-D, Chandigarh, a partnership firm, through its partner Sh. H.S. Birdi. … Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh, through its Administrator and another … Respondents II CWP No.483 of 1991 (O&M) Mr. Vijay Kumar Malik son of Shri Ram Lal, 52/78, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. … Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh, through its Administrator and another … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for Chandigarh Administration. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) I CWP No.482 of 1991 CWP No.482 of 1991 (O&M) [2] 1. The petitioner seeks through the writ petition a direction by mandamus for immediate delivery of possession of industrial plot in Phase-I. However, after the allotments, it appears that the Government of India had rejected the proposals of the Chandigarh Administration for permission to develop an industrial layout in the place where allotments were made on the ground that it was a forest area and hence, it could not be converted. Consequently, the Administration had given an option that it be adjusted with an allotment of 1 kanal plot in the place of 2 kanal / 4 kanal industrial plot at Chandigarh and also stated that the consent shall be given within 3 days to consider the allotments of the plot by a subsequent letter dated 17.12.1990 (Annexure P-9). The Administration declared that since the petitioner had refused to give consent, the allotment which has been previously done required to be reviewed. Under the circumstances, the other prayer in the writ petition was for quashing all these communications, calling upon the petitioner to exercise the option. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admits that amounts that had been paid were also refunded by the Administration after the Supreme Court judgment upholding the Government’s decision declining the conversion of the forest area as industrial plots. No further relief is possible under such circumstances and the petitioner cannot have the benefit of allotment in industrial plot No.1215, Phase-I as per the proceedings already made on 07.12.1982. The writ petition is dismissed. II CWP No.483 of 1991 3. The said writ petition addresses the very same point of yet another allottee, seeking for similar reliefs in respect of allotment in an CWP No.482 of 1991 (O&M) [3] adjoining plot in the same layout plot No.1215, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The said writ petition also would require to be dismissed for the same reasons. 4. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. .August 04, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE