IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10381 of 2007. Date of Decision: 11th May, 2009. M/s Aggarsain Polymers & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate. 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 petitioners seek quashing of the demand raised by the respondent – HUDA authorities towards the enhanced allotment price of the Industrial Plots in Sector 29, Panipat. Shorn of the details, the petitioners' case appears to be that the enhanced amount of compensation paid by the HUDA to the landowners in terms of a decision of this Court in the land acquisition proceedings, is being recovered from the allottees of the industrial plots only, instead of equal distribution thereof amongst all the allottees of the acquired land, measuring 277 acres. The respondents, on the other hand, have disputed the petitioners' allegations and have maintained that the enhanced compensation has been divided proportionately amongst all the allottees. In the realm of these disputed facts, the controversy can be set at rest if the petitioners are provided the information sought by them under the Right to Information Act vide application dated 20.10.2008, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-30 along with Civil Misc. No. 24204 of 2008. The respondents in their short reply to the aforesaid Civil Misc. Appilcation have stated that supply of the information sought by the petitioners is still under consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that till date the said information has not been provided. Suffice it to say that if all the details are furnished to the petitioners, they might be satisfied that no excess payment towards enhanced compensation is sought to be recovered from them. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 – Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat to furnish the requisite information as sought by the petitioners vide application [Annexure P-30] or any other additional information which the petitioners may like to have, within a period of three months from the date the petitioners produce a certified copy of this order along with an application for additional information, if any. The petitioners may thereafter satisfy themselves as to whether or not the respondents have justifiably demanded the enhanced amount. If the petitioners are still aggrieved at the demand raised against them, they shall be at liberty to question the same before such a forum where all the issues including disputed questions of facts can be effectively resolved. Disposed of. Dasti. May 11, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE