Civil Writ petition No.19770 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 25.3.2010 Ms.Laxmi Jain --Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondents. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. Invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, directing the respondents to allot an alternative site to the extent of plot bearing No.16, Sector 21-C, Marble Market, Faridabad, in the same vicinity. 2. In the wake of notice of motion, none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service and the case was adjourned to 16.3.2010, vide order dated 22.2.2010. On that date, counsel for the respondents sought time to file the reply and the case was adjourned to 25.3.2010 for arguments. However, the respondents were directed to file written statement before the said date with an advance copy to the counsel opposite. Today, neither written statement has been filed nor any cogent explanation is forth coming on record, in this respect. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of in the following manner. 4. It is not a matter of dispute that plot bearing No.16 was allotted to the petitioner on 18.9.2001. The petitioner deposited the requisite instalments of the price of the plot as per terms and conditions. The physical possession could not be handed over to the allottee, as the plot in question was in illegal possession of one Sandeep Khatri son of Sunder Sham Khatri, proprietor of M/s Shivam Makrana, Faridabad. Civil Writ petition No.19770 of 2009 2 5. Again it is not a matter of dispute that on the representation of the petitioner, the Administrator, HUDA has recommended that plot No.1(p), which was surrendered by the original allottee and as on date was lying unallotted, may be considered for allotment to her (petitioner) in this regard, vide Memo No.3419 dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P9), but respondent No.1-Chief Administrator, HUDA did not decide the matter, which necessitated the petitioner to issue legal notice dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P10). Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6. As is evident from the record that respondent No.1 has neither decided the representation by way of notice (Annexure P10) nor has allotted any alternative site to the petitioner, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid reasons, respondent No.1 is directed to decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure P10) filed by the petitioner within two months, positively from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to convey the decision to her (petitioner) in this connection. 7. The instant writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 25.3.2010 AS