Civil Writ Petition No. 9831 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 9831 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.10.2010 S.S. Jain Sabha (Regd.), Hoshiarpur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Alok Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1, 4 and 5. Mr. C.L.Premy, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for respondents No.3. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that the writ, in the nature of certiorari, be issued and the impugned order dated 6.5.2009, wrongly typed as 8.5.2009 (Annexure P7) be set aside as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, before passing the said order. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 7.7.2009, while issuing notice of motion, had observed as under:- “...The impugned order dated 6.5.2009 has been Civil Writ Petition No. 9831 of 2009 2 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, allegedly consequent upon the directions of the High Court in CWP No. 961 of 2009 titled as Inderjit Gupta and others Vs. State of Punjab and others. The copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has also been placed on record as Annexure P-5. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that this Court had only permitted the competent authority to look into the matter and the petitioner was permitted to make representation to the Deputy Commissioner, who was directed to take appropriate action in accordance with the law obviously by complying the principle of natural justice. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner, who was though respondent in the writ petition was never put to notice nor was heard in any manner. As a matter of fact, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither heard nor even put to notice before passing the order. Notice of motion. List on 6.8.2009. Parties to appear before the Registrar (Judl.)-I for completion of service/pleadings. In the meantime, status quo with respect Civil Writ Petition No. 9831 of 2009 3 to the property in question shall be maintained by the parties. Copy of this order be given under the signatures of Court Secretary”. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the land has been acquired and the compensation has been paid. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to hold possession of the disputed plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed this fact. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, can pass a fresh order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to Inderjit Gupta and Others, who had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 961 of 2009 titled as Inderjit Gupta and Others v. State of Punjab and Others and in consequence thereof, order dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P7) was passed. In view of the broad agreement arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P7) is set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, is directed to pass a fresh order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Inderjit Gupta and other concerned. The parties shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, on 28.10.2010. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 11, 2010 “DK”