Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH CHANDER NAYAK versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Chander Nayak v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-18449-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12333 (11 December 2006)

Civil Writ Petition No. 18449 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: December 14,2006

Suresh Chander Nayak ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Present:- Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S.Khosla, Advocate

for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated November 22,1996 (Annexure P-6), whereby the allotment in favour of the father of the petitioner had been cancelled.

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner says that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Harsh Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana and others, JT 2001 (8) S.C.2961. According to the learned counsel, in Harsh Dhingra's case (supra) a cut off date in Haryana cases had been fixed as April 23,1996, whereas in the Punjab cases, the cut off date would be July 17, 1996, that is the date on which an interim order was passed by the High Court.

Taking into consideration the various pleas raised by the petitioner in the present petition, but without commenting upon the merits thereof at all, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali (exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator ) to re-examine the claim made by the petitioner and take such appropriate action, as may be required in accordance with law by passing a comprehensive and speaking order, within a period of four Civil Writ Petition No. 18449 of 2006 2

months from the date a certified copy of the order is received. The petitioner shall also be entitled to be represented by a counsel during the course of hearing before the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has informed the Court that on account of the constitution of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, the powers of the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, had been vested in the Additional Chief Administrator (GMADA), Mohali. If that be so, the matter shall be re-examined by the Additional Chief Administrator (GMADA), Mohali.

Parties through their learned counsel have been directed to appear before the Additional Chief Administrator (GMADA), Mohali on January 12,2007 at 10.00 A.M.

Till the matter is finally decided by the competent authority and for a period of two weeks thereafter, the plot in question shall not be re- allotted to any other person than the petitioner.

A copy of the order be given dasti on usual payment.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

( H.S.BHALLA )

December 14,2006 JUDGE

vk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.