IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2810 of 2008. Date of Decision: 19th February, 2009. Mange Ram ....Petitioner through Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate Versus HUDA & Anr. ...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) Plot No. 22, Sector 5, Urban Estate, Karnal was allotted to Smt. Prabha Goel wife of Shri Subhash Chander in the year 1992. The plot site being under litigation, its possession could not be delivered to the allottee. An alternative plot No. 126 in the same Sector was thereafter allotted to her on 15.4.1999 [Annexure P-1]. The petitioner claims himself to be General Power of Attorney of the original allottee – Prabha Goel and sought the transfer of the said plot in his name, inter-alia, on the plea that the delay in payment of due installments is of no consequence now as the petitioner has deposited the entire dues along with interest/penal interest. The respondents have turned down the petitioner's claim on two counts. Firstly, they are disputing the genuineness of the General Power of Attorney as according to them the original allottee had surrendered the plot on her own. Secondly, the installments were never paid as per the Schedule, therefore, the allotment of the plot stood cancelled on a written request of the allottee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the disputed questions of fact especially with regard to genuineness of the Power of Attorney being relied upon by the petitioner and which can not be effectively answered by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate or Revisional Authorities under the HUDA Act. In case any appeal/revision is preferred by the petitioner within one month from today, the concerned authorities shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as early as possible. If the petitioner prefers the appeal/revision within the prescribed time, third party rights shall not be created till such appeal/revision is decided. Disposed of. February 19, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE