C.W.P. No.4338 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) C.W.P. No.4338 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Parmal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (2) C.W.P. No.4345 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (3) C.W.P. No.6173 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Mehtab ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (4) C.W.P. No.6174 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Bal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (5) C.W.P. No.6175 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Gopi Chand ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents C.W.P. No.4338 of 2007 -2- (6) C.W.P. No.6176 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Dhan Pal ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (7) C.W.P. No.6177 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Subhash ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (8) C.W.P. No.6178 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Smt. Tofa ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (9) C.W.P. No.6179 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Dharam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (10) C.W.P. No.6180 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Anil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (11) C.W.P. No.6181 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Vijay Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents C.W.P. No.4338 of 2007 -3- (12) C.W.P. No.6182 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Anaro ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents (13) C.W.P. No.6183 of 2007 Date of decision:18.08.2009. Bhim Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.13 to 16. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. This order will dispose of 13 writ petitions bearing Nos.4338, 4345, 6173, 6174, 6175, 6176, 6177, 6178, 6179, 6180, 6181, 6182 and 6183 all of 2007. To dictate order, facts are being taken from CWP No.4338 of 2007. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to allotment of 8 plots, measuring 1 Kanal each, to the private respondents. This writ petition came up for hearing on 21.03.2007, on which date, following order was passed by this Court: - “Let notice of motion issue to the respondents, returnable on 18.07.2007. C.W.P. No.4338 of 2007 -4- Status-quo as exists today with regard to the possession of the plot in question be maintained.” It is an admitted fact that, during pendency of this writ petition, plots in question were further transferred in favour of respondent Nos.11 to 16, by the original allottees. It is apparent from the records that when plots were allotted to the private respondents, petitioner(s), though eligible, their claim was not considered, at all. Considering that situation, as mentioned above, this Court directed counsel for the HUDA, to see the feasibility of carving out plots, for the petitioners, whose claim was not considered wrongly. In response thereto, copy of the letter dated 10.08.2009 was put on record, wherein it was mentioned that it is possible to carve out some plots in Sector 46, Faridabad, however, it will not be possible to adjust all the petitioners, who are 12 in number, in that Sector. Taking note of abovesaid fact, on 11.08.2009, following order was passed by this Court: - “Counsel for the respondent – HUDA has put on record a copy of order dated August 10, 2009, wherein it has been stated that HUDA is in the process of carving out more plots in Sector 46, Faridabad. It is further stated that plots will be less and some petitioners will not get a plot. Such a stand is not justified, especially in the face of admitted facts that land of the petitioners was acquired to develop Sector 46 in Faridabad and they were also applicants for allotment of plots along with the private respondents. Without looking into their claim, plots were allotted to the private respondents. Chief Administrator, HUDA, is directed to come present on August 18, 2009, and give a statement as C.W.P. No.4338 of 2007 -5- to whether the petitioners can be adjusted in this sector or adjoining Sector. A photostat copy of this order be placed on the connected files i.e. Civil Writ Petitions No.4345, 6173, 6174, 6175, 6176 to 6183, all of the year 2007. Copy of this order be supplied to counsel for HUDA under signatures of Reader.” Shri T.C.Gupta, Chief Administrator, HUDA is present in Court. Confronted with the situation, as mentioned above, and on persuasion by this Court to settle rights of all the contesting parties in an amicable manner, he very fairly states that for the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, 12 plots will be carved out, as per their entitlement, in Sector 46, Faridabad and allotment shall be made to them within a period of 6 weeks from today. He further states that in CWP No.6173 of 2007, to the petitioner, a plot shall be allotted, as per his entitlement, in Sector 21-D, Faridabad, within a period of 6 weeks from today. Mr. Palli, on getting instructions from all the petitioners, who are present in Court, accepts the offer made by Shri T.C. Gupta, regarding allotment of plots, as mentioned above, he further states that the petitioners will not sell the plots for a period of five years. This Court is of the opinion that this arrangement is peculiar to the facts of these cases and shall not be cited as a precedent in other cases of the like nature. In view of consensus arrived at between the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of. August 18, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod* JUDGE