IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.22963 of 2011 Date of Decision:- December 12, 2011 Nirmal Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus H.U.D.A., Panchkula and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral) The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents to allot an alternative plot to them in lieu of Plot No.155-P, Sector 21-C, Part-III, Faridabad and deliver actual physical possession of the same. It is the case of the petitioners that initially Plot No.155-P, Sector 21-C, Part-III, Faridabad was allotted in favour of one Smt. Namita wife of Vishwa Bandhu Mahendra and Punit son of Vishwa Bandhu Mahendra. Later on, the said plot was transferred by Smt. Namita in the name of Smt. Nirmal Sharma and Shikha Sharma (petitioners herein). With the permission of the respondents, the re-allotment letter was issued in the name of the petitioners on 7.1.2005. It is further case of the petitioners that when they approached respondent No.3 for handing over the physical Civil Writ Petition No.22963 of 2011 -2- possession of the said plot, it was informed that possession of the said plot could not be delivered as the same falls under the forest area. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 made a detailed representation that in lieu of the said plot, an alternative plot be allotted to them, but the said representation has not been considered. Thereafter, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 18.11.2011, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P4. It is the case of the petitioners that till date the respondents have not taken any action on the said legal notice. In view of the aforesaid facts, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, without issuing notice of motion to the other side, as it will unnecessary delay the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P4) served by the petitioners, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 12, 2011 (PARAMJEET SINGH) vkg JUDGE