HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.22824 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 **** Sandeep Jain and Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. Union of India & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. ND Achint, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) {1}. Notice of motion. Dr. Urmil Gupta, Advocate who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-UOI. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their reply/affidavit, at this stage. {2}. The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to allot them a plot measuring 500 sq.yards as per the policy and constitute a Committee for arbitration to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners on account of the acquisition of Bungalow No.65, The Mall, Jalandhar Cantt., the possession whereof has been taken by the respondents on 27th February, 2001. CWP No.22824 of 2010.doc - 2 – {3}. The short grievance of the petitioners is that the aforesaid Bungalow No.65 along with the land measuring 2.95 acres was purchased by their great- grandfather vide sale deed dated 13.08.1937 and the same was duly mutated in his name. After the death of great-grandfather of the petitioners, the said property has devolved upon the legal heirs-in- succession and at the time of its acquisition by the respondents, it was owned by the petitioners. {4}. It is the petitioners’ case that in lieu of the acquisition of their Bungalow, they are entitled to be paid compensation to be assessed by the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952. In addition to it, the petitioners are also entitled to a plot measuring 500 sq.yards as per the policy framed by the respondents. The petitioners have further averred that the respondents have, vide the communication dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P9), informed that the matter is still under active consideration of the competent authority. The aforesaid communication reads as follows :- “Acting on your assurance the undersigned has withdrawn the said civil suit on 24.10.2005 which has been allowed vide an order dated CWP No.22824 of 2010.doc - 3 – 24.10.2005, paving the way for an amicable settlement whereunder the undersigned may be allotted an alternative plot as well as other benefits entitled to the undersigned as referred in our representation dated 01.08.2005 and other representations sent by the undersigned.” {5}. In view of the fact that the matter appears to be pending consideration with the competent authority, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider both the above-stated claims made on behalf of the petitioners and take an appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. {6}. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 21.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE