IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17841 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 09.12.2011 Ishwar Lal Chugh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji and Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This writ petition has been filed by Ishwar Lal Chugh through his General Power of Attorney Shri Vijay Guglani son of Jagdish Chand, resident of House No. 443/1, Near Param Hans Kutia, Panipat, with a prayer to issue direction to the respondents to deliver the physical possession of plot No. 1217 situated in Sector 24, HUDA, Panipat, to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was allotted the aforesaid plot vide allotment letter dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-2). A perusal of the allotment letter indicates that the allotment was made in favour of Ishwar CWP No. 17841 of 2011 -2- Lal Chugh son of Shri Hari Chand, 881/8, Near Lal Masjid, Panipat, whereas in the General Power of Attorney, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of Shri Vijay Guglani, he has stated himself to be resident of village Chhichhrauli District Yamuna Nagar. Further, neither the photograph of the alleged attorney has been affixed on the General Power of Attorney nor it bears his signatures. This created suspicion in our mind. Therefore, on the last date of hearing i.e. on December 07, 2009, the original record of the allotment of plot in question was called from the office of Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, which was received and ordered to be kept in sealed cover. The petitioner and the alleged General Power of Attorney holder were directed to remain present in the Court. Today, the petitioner, who alleged himself to be the original allottee, is present in the Court. He is a Sikh gentleman. However, the alleged General Power of Attorney holder has not come present in the court, in spite of the direction issued by this court. In the power of attorney, petitioner Ishwar Lal Chugh has given his ration card No. 331562, whereas the original ration card of the allottee, which has been produced by the petitioner, is bearing Number 360753. Prima facie, we are not in a position to take the decision that alleged Ishwar Lal Chugh, who is present in the court, is the same person or not, to whom the plot was allotted. Without further going into this issue, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed by the petitioner through his General Power of Attorney Vijay Guglani, who is not present in the court, in CWP No. 17841 of 2011 -3- spite of the direction given by this Court. Therefore, we cannot accept the alleged General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Vijay Guglani, as it may result into fraud with the original allottee. Being conscious with this fact, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. The original file of the office of the HUDA is returned to learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, with a direction that they should carefully handle any application of transfer of this plot, and that too only after proper verification of the original allottee. Before taking any action on the power of attorney for transfer of the plot in question, the HUDA authorities will also properly verify the antecedents of the alleged attorney. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 09, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE