IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10687 of 2008. Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2009. H.B.Arora ....Petitioner through Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for HUDA. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 25.5.1999 [Annexure P-6], 10.9.2002 [Annexure P-7], 18.1.2004 [Annexure P-8] and 5.3.2008 [Annexure P-9]. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to accept the outstanding dues regarding Shop No. 132, Sector 6, Karnal and to restore the allotment thereof in his favour. The afore-stated shop was allotted to Smt. Sham Devi – mother of the petitioner. She unfortunately expired on 6.4.2007. It appears that though the mother of the petitioner had paid 25% of the sale consideration, but she defaulted in paying the subsequent installments. The non-payment of the allotment price led to resumption of the site. The petitioner's mother preferred an appeal, followed a revision which were dismissed by the Authorities on 10.9.2002 and 18.1.2004 respectively. It further appears that soon after the death of the petitioner's mother, the subject site was sought to be re-auctioned by the HUDA which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. It is not in dispute that in terms of the order dated 10.6.2008 passed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited the entire arrears along with interest as per HUDA Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was further asked to deposit another sum of Rs.17,911/- vide letter dated 26.6.2008 and the said amount has also been deposited by him on 30.6.2008. Thereafter No Dues Certificate has also been issued to him on 7.7.2008. The subject shop, however, is not being transferred in the petitioner's name on the ground that the matter is sub-judice before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the entire sale consideration has been paid by the petitioner along with interest and he is ready and willing to pay if anything is still due against him, I am of the considered view that there is no legal impediment in the way of the respondents in transferring the said site in favour of the petitioner. Of course, the petitioner shall also comply with any other conditions that may be required under the Rules/Regulations. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to transfer the shop in question in favour of the petitioner and/or any other legal heir of Smt. Sham Devi, in accordance with HUDA Rules. Let the needful be done within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the respondents. Disposed of. No costs. February 3, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE