Civil Writ Petition No. 2555 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 2555 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.10.2009 Ved Vart Yadav …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 to 6. Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.7. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In consonance with the earlier order passed, counsel for the State has submitted that three persons had applied after 30.1.2004. Their particulars have been furnished in a letter dated 10.8.2009 addressed to the Advocate General, Haryana. The letter is taken on record. The particulars of the persons are as follows:- Civil Writ Petition No. 2555 of 2008 2 Sr. No. Name of the applicant No. of CWPs Name of Court Status 1 Mrs. Anupama Mudgil W/o P.N. Mudgil, 198/A, 1st Floor, Multani Mohalla, Near Maya Tent House, Rani Bagh, Delhi-34. 19513 of 2006 Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh As per order dated 8.12.06 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the DTCP Haryana has passed the orders dated 12.9.2007. 2 Smt. Neha Mittal W/o Sh. Sanjay Mittal & Smt. Usha Jain W/o Shri Shro Lalit Jain, B- 1/93, Yamuna Nagar, New Delhi CM No. 13381 of 2008 In CWP No. 14850 of 2006 --DO-- As per order dated 24.7.08 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the DTCP Haryana has passed the orders dated 10.12.2008. 3 Sh. Sahdu Ram COCP No. 73 of 09 in CWP No. 19018 of 08 --DO-- As per order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the DTCP Haryana has passed the orders dated 24.2.2009 I have heard counsel for the parties. They are in agreement that on facts, this case is covered by the ratio of law laid in Okhla Enclave Plot Holders (Allottee) Forum (Regd.), New Delhi v. State of Haryana and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 3311 of 2001, decided on 18.3.2002). Copy of the judgment has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P11. Mr. Sunil Nehra, on observation made by this Court, has Civil Writ Petition No. 2555 of 2008 3 stated that the stand taken by the respondent-State is not different than the stand taken in judgment Annexure P11. He has also admitted that relief sought by the petitioner is not different from the one sought in Annexure P11. After perusing Annexure P11 and hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the present writ petition, on facts and law and for purposes of relief, can be disposed of in same terms as in Annexure P11. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 26, 2009 “DK”