C.W.P. No.19557 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 22.09.2008 Sanjeev Sharma and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were issued the allotment letter on 18.1.1999, but due to financial constraints and certain other problems beyond their control, they could not deposit the price amount. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that while dealing with similar cases, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in para 115 of the judgment reported in JT.2008 (8) SC-184 (M.D., H.S.I.D.C. and others versus M/s Hari Om Enterprises and another, as under: “........115. Before us, several allottees had categorically made a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the prevailing price as fixed by the appellant- Corporation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this cases, we are of the opinion that in the event, respondents offer the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High Court, the plot, in question, C.W.P. No.19557 of 2006 2 shall stand re-allotted and should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such reallotment may be made even in cases where we have found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable........” Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the revisional authority being the Government, allowed the revision of petitioners and relegated them to Estate Officer for a fresh consideration of their claim a year back. According to him, petitioners' case can also be considered in the light of aforesaid decision as they are ready to pay the market price prevailing on the date of decision in revision application. Stand of learned counsel for petitioners appears to be reasonable. Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for respondents, also does not have a serious ground to oppose the offer. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the authorities concerned to consider petitioners' claim within 4 weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order, and pass appropriate order in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court. This writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 22-09-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO