IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8599 of 2008 Date of decision: 06.01.2010 Krishan Kumar Aggarwal ....Petitioner versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Chandail, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petition is for issuance of a direction for giving a letter of allotment in favour of the son of the petitioner Kapil Aggarwal in respect of a property in SCO No.34, Sector 12, Panchkula. The property had been originally allotted in the name of the HUF of which the petitioner, his wife and his son were members. It is an admitted case that the entire consideration payable for the property has been already made but however the conveyance deed has not been executed. To the plea by the petitioner that there has been a settlement amongst the members of the family evidenced through the decree of Court on 09.04.2007 providing for allotment of the property to the son, the respondents would contend that they were not made parties in the suit on Civil Writ Petition No.8599 of 2008 - 2 - the basis of which a decree is said to have been passed and they are not bound by such decree. 2. In my view, if the entire sale consideration has been paid and one of the allottees wants to withdraw and would seek for the allotment to be taken as made to a member of the family, the respondents cannot have any objection. The allotment within the members of the family is indeed not a transfer but a predication of a right that already exists. The respondents are therefore bound to act on such a plea so long as all the original allottees are in unison that the allotment shall now stand made to only one of the members of the family. The fact that the respondents were not parties to the suit in which the allocation of the right to the property was made to one of the members is irrelevant. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make the allotment in favour of the son of the petitioner Kapil Aggarwal, without insisting upon the execution of the conveyance deed, vide Memo No.A-1 (P)-2002/23702-22, dated 04.09.2002, issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.01.2010. sanjeev