Punjab-Haryana High Court
S. Tejinder Singh Atwal & Anr vs Punjab Urban Development Authority & ... on 24 February, 2011
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Civil Revision No.844 of 2010 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.844 of 2010
Date of Decision:-24.02.2011
S. Tejinder Singh Atwal & Anr.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority & Anr.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
for respondents no.1 & 2.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 21.12.2009(P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jalandhar thereby allowing the application filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and directing the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration in consonance of Clause 20 of the letter of allotment dated 06.11.2002(P-1).
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was allotted an SCO No.41, Phase-II, Jalandhar measuring 20' x 80' vide allotment letter 06.11.2002 issued by PUDA, Jalandhar(respondent no.1). It is also not in Civil Revision No.844 of 2010 #2# dispute that for violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter a resumption order dated 02.06.2009(P-3) was passed by the Estate Officer, Jalandhar Development Authority(respondent no.2) in exercise of the powers under Sub Section 3 of Section 45 of the Punjab Regional Town and Planning Development Act(for short the 1995 Act). It is also not in dispute that against the resumption order dated 02.06.2009 the petitioner had filed an appeal under Sub Section 5 of Section 45 of the 1995 Act before Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Jalandhar. The appeal was dismissed.
It is also not in dispute that said appeal was dismissed vide orders dated 13.10.2009 conveyed vide endorsement dated 09.11.2009 by the Appellate Authority. It is also not in dispute that against the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Secretary Local Bodies, Government of Punjab under Sub Section 8 of Section 45 of the Act and the same is pending decision.
It is also admitted that after the resumption proceedings the petitioner had also filed a civil suit on 18.07.2009 seeking declaration to the effect that resumption order dated 02.06.2009 was illegal and not binding on the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is in the suit that application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 was moved by the defendant/respondent(PUDA) seeking reference of the dispute for arbitration in view of condition no.20 of the letter of allotment. The application was allowed and hence the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that during the pendency of the present revision petitions the petitioners were granted Civil Revision No.844 of 2010 #3# protection of the status quo order by this Court and, therefore, he prays that the learned Revisional Authority be directed to decide the said application filed by the petitioners to be decided within a particular time frame.
At the time of arguments it is not in dispute that by virtue of provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the 1995 Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit in respect of the resumption orders etc is specifically barred. It is also admitted by both the parties that the efficacious and statutory remedy of revision availed is pending decision. In such circumstances it also cannot be disputed that the entire suit is not maintainable, therefore, the present order also cannot be sustained.
Learned Counsel for both the parties are agreed that in such circumstances option for the petitioner is to pursue the appropriate remedy available with him in the revision petition.
The Revisional Authority is directed to decide the said application pending before the revisional authority within two weeks from receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly the present revision is disposed of.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE February 24, 2011 Vinay