Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ved Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 March, 2013

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Amol Rattan Singh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                       CWP No. 6259 of 2013
                                           DATE OF DECISION : 22.03.2013

Ved Ram
                                                              .... PETITIONER
                                    Versus
State of Haryana and others

                                                          ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH


Present:     Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

                   ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to allot him plot under the oustees category.

It is the case of the petitioner that vide notification dated 6.5.1996, his 1/3 share in the land measuring 67 kanals 2 marlas, situated in village Unchagaon, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, was acquired for development of Institutional, Residential and Commercial Sector 65, Faridabad. It is the further case of the petitioner that in spite of the requests made by him, the respondents did not consider his claim for allotment of plot under the oustees policy of the State Government. In this regard, a representation dated 14.6.2012, copy of which is available on record as Annexure P-11, was submitted by the petitioner to the Administrator, CWP No. 6259 of 2013 -2- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (respondent No.3 herein), but till date the same has not been considered and decided.

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.3 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation dated 14.6.2012 by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.




                                           ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                                    JUDGE



March 22, 2013                              ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH )
ndj                                                 JUDGE