IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13516 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:25.05.2011 M/s Precision Engineering Industries ....Petitioner versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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) 1. For a case filed in the year 1990 by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the order that required of the petitioner to complete construction within two months, the respondent has not chosen to file any objection so far. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that an industrial plot was allotted in the year 1980 but possession had not been given in view of some other proceeding taken contemporaneously under Land Acquisition Act. The property, however, was delivered only on 14.05.1990 and by the impugned notice, the construction was required to be completed by 31.03.1991. In the letter of allotment, it had been provided that the petitioner should construct the industrial shed within a period of two Civil Writ Petition No.13516 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - years from the date of offer of possession but through the impugned notice, the period fell to be reduced by one year. The writ petition was filed soon thereafter and the order appears to have been stayed. Surprisingly, if the petitioner's grievance was that the period mentioned was not appropriate, he should have completed the construction in two years' time. The property had been after all in the possession of the petitioner and there was no prohibition against the petitioner from constructing the industrial shed. 3. I cannot see how the petitioner could have any relief now. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for time for completing the construction. It is further contended that the development work had not taken effect at the time of delivery of possession in 1990 as an excuse for not completing the construction. This cannot improve the situation for the petitioner to secure any better relief since the counsel concedes that the development work had been completed in the year 1991 itself. The petitioner deserves no further consideration than a mere observation that a direction for completion of construction within a period of one year through the impugned notice was erroneous. It is quashed. I give no further direction for completion of construction. It shall be open for the respondents to take such action as the law provides for. 4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.05.2011 sanjeev