C.W.P. No.14287 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.09.2008 Nasib Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Mr.R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate, S/Shri D.D.Gupra, R.D.Gupta, D.S.Malik, C.B.Goel, B.S.Bedi, Sanjay Vij, J.K.Goel, S.M.Sharma, Ashish Aggarwal, Deepak Manchanda, Vikram Singh and Jagdish Manchanda, Advocates, for petitioners. Mr.M.L.Saggar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Gaurav Mohanta, Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Mr.Amandeep Singh and Mr.Raman Gaur, Advocates, for HUDA. Mr.J.K.Sibal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for M/s True Zone Buildwell Private Limited (added respondent). -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. This judgment shall also dispose of connected Civil Writ Petition Nos.459 of 1999, 14288 of 2003, 18486, 18704, 18856, 18887, 19187, 19217, 19318, 19369, 19433, 19434, 19457, 19551, 19555, 19556, 18393, 19557, 19667, 18365, 19698, 19947, 20102, 9376 and 18838 of 2004, 302 of 2005, 1184, 18762 and 578 of 2006, 3435, 3459, 16736 and 459 of 2007, as this bunch of writ petitions impugns common questions of law with somewhat similar facts which need not be mentioned for disposal of these cases, in view of statement of Mr.M.L.Saggar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, that Government is still open to consider representations of petitioners, if any, C.W.P. No.14287 of 2003 2 on merits in terms of State policy and also on grounds of discrimination, if similar benefits have been extended to any similarly situated land owners or licencees, as alleged. Mr.Saggar submitted a chart in Court in respect of these writ petitions, which contains reasons for grant of release or refusal in respect of impugned lands which are also detailed in orders passed by Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Copies of orders passed by Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, have already been supplied to learned counsel for petitioners. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Mr.R.S.Mittal and other learned counsel, who appeared for petitioners, alleged that the State Government has shown undue favour to M/s True Zone Buildwell Private Limited (added respondent), by passing order of release of its land under Section 48-A of the Land Acquisition Act, while denying those benefits to petitioners who are also similarly situated. Mr.Sibbal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of M/s True Zone Buildwell Private Limited (added respondent), submitted that following the exemption granted by State Government, his client has invested a huge amount of Rs.14 crores and having carved out plots of various size, has sold those plots to about 500 people including the members of economically weaker sections of the society. If that released land is directed to be re-acquired in terms of the judgment reported in AIR 2005 S.C.565 (M/s Anand Buttons Limited etc. Versus State of Haryana and others), his client would be put to an irreparable loss. C.W.P. No.14287 of 2003 3 During the course of arguments, we also noticed a lot of disputed facts which alone can be a ground to dismiss these writ petitions, but since the State Government has shown a favourable gesture, as reflected in the statement of Mr.Saggar, in the interest of justice, we deem it expedient to dispose of all these writ petitions with liberty to petitioners to submit fresh representations to Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, on ground of discrimination as also in terms of policy of Government of Haryana. Needless to say that in case of rejection of their representations, petitioners may agitate their grievances by filing fresh writ petitions, if so advised. Moreover, during pendency of representations of petitioners before Competent Authority, parties shall maintain status-quo as on today. Thus, with these observations and directions, all these writ petitions in bunch are disposed of. Concerned Assistant Registrar to place photocopies of this order in files of connected cases. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 09-09-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO