Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh vs Greater Area Mohali Development ... on 3 October, 2016
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Ramendra Jain
CWP No. 18467 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18467 of 2016
Date of Decision: 3.10.2016
Kulwant Singh
....Petitioner.
Versus
Greater Area Mohali Development Authority, Mohali and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN.
PRESENT: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the building licence granted to respondent No.3 for project No.2 at Kharar-Banur Road in Sector 110-11, Mohali.
2. The petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian and is residing in USA. In the year 2008, when the petitioner visited India, the representative of respondent No.3 approached the petitioner to invest the money in commercial property with their future project No.2, Kharar-Banur Road, Sector 110-111, Mohali. The deal was finalized through Advanced Registration Form (Annexure P-1) through Sanyam Dudeja with regard to a plot measuring 204 square yards having 50% common open space and 50% covered area @ ` 27,500/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2016 00:12:20 ::: CWP No. 18467 of 2016 -2- ` 56,10,000/-. The petitioner deposited ` 11,00,000/-, i.e. 20% of the total cost of the plot through RTGS on 20.5.2008. The petitioner made the entire payment of the plot, i.e. ` 63,90,500/- on different dates. Despite the receipt of the said amount, respondent No.3 did not submit the layout plan of 204 square yards for approval to the Chief Town Planner and got approved a layout plan of 102 square yards. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2012 (Annexure P-2) as not maintainable being not covered by another judgment dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed in Rajinder Singh v. Taneja Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint, Annexure P-3, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a direction to the SHO, Police Station, Phase IX, Mohali for registration of FIR against respondent No.3. One Navinderpal Singh also filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of a case against respondent No.3 and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali vide order dated 4.9.2013 (Annexure P-4) directed the SHO to register a FIR against respondent No.3 and the FIR was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 5.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) upon respondent No.2 for cancellation of building licence of respondent No.3, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent the legal notice dated 5.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2, but no action has so far been taken thereon.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2016 00:12:21 ::: CWP No. 18467 of 2016 -3-
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 5.10.2015 (Annexure P-5), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
October 3, 2016 (RAMENDRA JAIN)
gbs JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2016 00:12:21 :::