IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17046 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 Davender Kumar .....PETITIONER Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who alleged that his land was acquired vide notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and with regard to the acquired land an award was made on 5.11.1995, has filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to allot him a plot according to the Policies of the Haryana Urban Development Authority dated 18.3.1992 and 12.3.1993 being oustee from the acquired land. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had made a representation in this regard, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P2 with the petition, but the same has not been considered by the authorities till date. Learned counsel further argued that this Court in CWP No.19927 of 2009, titled as “Sandeep Versus State of Haryana and others” and CWP No. 1605 of 2010, titled as “Mahinder Versus Haryana Urban CWP No.17046 of 2011 -2- Development Authority and another”, decided on May 16, 2011, has considered the Policy and aspect of making applications with regard to allotment of plots under the oustee quota framed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Learned counsel further argued that the said representation till date is pending and the same has not been considered by the authorities in light of the said judgment. He states that at this stage the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat to consider his representation as per law and in accordance with the aforesaid decision, expeditiously. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, without issuing notice to the other side, as it will unnecessary delay the matter, and direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and the law, expeditiously, within a reasonable time. Ordered accordingly. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 13, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE