Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Chander vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 29 November, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 18400 of 2010
Date of Decision: 29.11.2012
Ramesh Chander
... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik. Present: Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondents.
Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) By filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to quash an order dated 12.4.2006 (Annexure P3) whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a specific amount towards extension fee. In that order, it is further stated that after deposit of the above said amount, possession of S.C.F. No. 130, SC-3 will be given to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that after allotment, possession of the site in dispute was not offered to him. It is also on record that challenging the above order, at an earlier point of time, the petitioner had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, the Forum has given a finding that infact letter offering possession in the year 1990 was not issued. Noting that fact, relief was granted to the petitioner. In appeal, the department succeeded on technical grounds, its appeal was Civil Writ Petition No. 18400 of 2010 2 allowed. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Taking note of the finding given by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, the following order was passed by this Court on 6.11.2012:-
"It is alleged by counsel for the respondent that offer of possession of the plot was made to the petitioner by the Estate Officer by writing a letter Annexure R-1. In the said letter, reference has been made to letter No. 2391 dated 10.9.1990, whereby possession of the plot in question was offered to the petitioner on completion of the development work etc. Prior to filing this petition, the petitioner has approached District Consumer Forum to lay challenge to that order.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter, Annexure R-1, was never despatched to the petitioner.
Tentatively, we are satisfied that the said letter had not been supplied to the petitioner. Even the letter (Annexure R-1) does not bear the number, date and signatures of the Estate Officer.
Under the circumstances noted above, we direct the respondents to produce the relevant record including letter no. 2391 dated 10.9.2010 and copy of letter, Annexure R-1. Besides this, despatch register be also brought in Court to verify despatch entry of letter Annexure R-1.
Adjourned to 29.11.2012."Civil Writ Petition No. 18400 of 2010 3
In response to the above order, original record has been produced in the Court. We have seen copy of the letter dated 9.12.1994. It is signed by the officer and is also numbered. We have also seen the despatch register wherein a despatch entry regarding this letter has been made.
In view of above, no case is made out to cause interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
However, if the petitioner deposits the amount claimed within one months from today, the authorities will hand over possession of the plot in question to him.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Rameshwar Singh Malik) Judge November 29, 2012 "DK"