Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mewa Singh v. HUDA & anr - CWP-5028-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5773 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 5028 OF 2006 1


* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 5028 OF 2006

Date of decision : July 31, 2006

* * * * *

Mewa Singh ............Petitioner


HUDA & anr ...........Respondents

* * * * *


Present: Mr. B.R Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider his application dated May 5, 2004 for allotment of a plot under oustees quota in Sector 6, Mansa Devi Complex, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The petitioner claims that the land of Smt. Bachni, mother of the petititoner measuring 33 kanals 13 marlas situated in Village Bhainsa Tibba, Tehsil and District Panchkula was acquired in the year 1985 and Award No.6 dated 14.8.1985 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in this regard. Consequently, the petitioner claims that after the death of his mother, the petitioner has inherited the interest of his mother and as such is entitled to be allotted a plot in the C.W.P NO. 5028 OF 2006 2

oustees quota. The grievance made is that, although the petitioner had applied in the oustees quota, his name was considered in general quota only.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. In the written statement filed by them, primarily, it has been maintained that the petitioner had failed to lead any evidence that the petitioner was the legal heir of Smt. Bachni. Further, it has been maintained that the petitioner had failed to supply the proof of relationship with Smt. Bachini and even no legal heir certificate has been submitted.

In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement and the plea raised by the petitioner in the present petition, we are satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. For this purpose, the petitioner would be required to file a detailed and comprehensive representation within a period of 4 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by annexing all the relevant documents. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula shall take into consideration the pleas raised by the petitioner and the documents submitted by him and thereafter pass a detailed and speaking order within a further period of 4 months after the filing of the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We further direct that since vide order dated March 30, 2006, the name of the petitioner was directed to be included in the draw of lots to be held on March 31, 2006 as an oustee. The aforesaid draw of lots qua the petitioner shall remain intact and any further appropriate action shall be C.W.P NO. 5028 OF 2006 3

taken after the finalisation of the claim of the petitioenr at the hands of the Estate Officer.

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



31.7.2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


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


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 |

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