Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Kumar Aggarwal Through His Gpa Shri ... vs Chief Administrator on 10 September, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19927 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 10.09.2013
Prem Kumar Aggarwal through his GPA Shri Ajay Kumar
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and
another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioner was allotted residential plot No. 227, Sector 21, Gurgaon, measuring 14 Marlas, vide letter dated 19.5.1986 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon (respondent No.2 herein), for a tentative price of ` 68,190/- at the rate of ` 238.42 per square meter. When possession of the said plot could not be delivered by the HUDA, vide allotment letter dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure P-2), an alternative plot bearing No. 136-P, Sector 9, Gurgaon, was allotted to the petitioner, though at a higher rate of ` 1,769/- per square meter. The petitioner challenged the said action of the respondents for charging higher rate of the alternative plot, by Dass Narotam 2013.09.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19927 of 2013 -2- filing a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, which was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2001 (Annexure P-3), and the respondents were directed to allot an alternative plot in the same Sector at the same rate as well as terms and conditions, as contained in the original allotment letter. The said decision, on appeal and revision, filed by respondent No.2, was affirmed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, respectively. The order passed in revision was further challenged by the respondents by filing Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Vide order dated 17.1.2008 (Annexure P-5), the appeal was allowed with slight modification to the extent that the respondent in the appeal (petitioner herein) would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% instead of 18%. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the said order, vide application dated 28.8.2012 (Annexure P-7), he had applied for transfer of the said plot, but till date, the said request is pending, in spite of the legal notice dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P-8) served by the petitioner upon the respondents.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the said legal notice dated 19.11.2012, by passing a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within Dass Narotam 2013.09.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 19927 of 2013 -3- a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 10, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2013.09.12 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document