Som Dutt Sharma vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 2 July, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Som Dutt Sharma vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 2 July, 2012

Bench: Surya Kant

CWP No. 388 of 2012                                            -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                     CWP No. 388 of 2012

                                     Date of decision: 2.7.2012

Som Dutt Sharma

                                           ..... Petitioner

                  Versus


The State of Punjab and others


                                           ..... Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate for
         Mr. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is an allottee of LIG Flat No. 3238 (Ground Floor) Sector-70, Ajitgarh, vide allotment letter No. 6407 dated 19.3.1999. He is aggrieved by order dated 24/25.7.2007 (Annexure P-2) whereby the abovestated flat has been resumed. He also assails the orders passed by the GMADA Authorities vide which appeal and revision petitions preferred by him against the resumption order have been dismissed. The petitioner's allotment was cancelled and the subject flat was resumed on the allegation that he had raised some un- authorized construction. The petitioner came with the plea that the un- CWP No. 388 of 2012 -2- authorized construction raised by him have since been removed.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 fairly states that the authorities have inspected the site and have found that un- authorized construction raised by the petitioner has been removed and the flat stands restored to its original condition. He further submits that on the petitioner's giving an undertaking that he shall not re-raise un-authorized construction and shall deposit the compounding fee of ` 6300/-, the resumption order shall be recalled and the flat shall be restored in his name.

In our considered view, the offer made by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 is just and fair. Consequently, we dispose of this petition with a direction that in case the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not raise any un-authorized construction in future and deposits the compounding fee of ` 6300/- within a period of three months, the impugned resumption order shall be withdrawn and the subject flat shall be restored in his name within a period of one month thereafter.

Disposed of.


                                                   ( SURYA KANT )
                                                       JUDGE



July 2, 2012                                       ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu                                                   JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court