Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJAY ARYA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjay Arya v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-20185-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12507 (14 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.20185 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: December 19, 2006

Sanjay Arya

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

....

Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Notice of motion to the respondents.

On the asking of Court, Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Copies of the writ petition have been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents.

Concededly, the plot No.391, Sector 8, IMT, Manesar which was allotted to the petitioner stood already allotted to another allottee. In these circumstances, the allotment of the aforesaid plot in favour of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled vide an order dated March 23, 2006 (Annexure P.5).

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even if the aforesaid plot was not available for allotment but keeping in view the fact that the said plot had been allotted and the petitioner had made 25% payment for the aforesaid allotment, he was entitled to an alternative plot.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the averments made in the present petition, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, respondent No.2 with a request for allotment of an alternative plot. If any such request is made by the petitioner by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, then the respondent Corporation shall take into consideration the aforesaid request and pass a detailed and speaking order within a further period of four months from the date of filing of the said representation and take such appropriate action, as may be required, in accordance with law.

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

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

December 19, 2006 (M.M.S. Bedi)

KD Judge


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.