Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOGINDER PAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-12819-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5842 (23 August 2006)

C.W.P NO.12819 OF 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO.12819 OF 2005

Date of decision : August 3, 2006

* * * * *

Joginder Pal ...........Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

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

Present: Mr. R.P Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. R.K Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of the directions to respondents no.2 & 3 to hand over the possession of the flat allotted to the petitioner vide an allotment letter dated March 31, 1997.

The claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents no.

2 & 3, it has been maintained that LIG House No.4444 was allotted to the petitioner on hire purchase basis vide allotment letter dated March 31, 1997.

The petitioner was to pay 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. The petitioner deposited 25% of the aforesaid amount and vide request letter dated October 1, 1997 asked for possession.

It has been maintained by the respondents that since the aforesaid deposit of the petitioner was after the expiry of the stipulated period as indicated in the allotment letter, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The petitioner was also informed that an amount of Rs.43,550/- was recoverable from the petitioner as on January 31, 1999.

C.W.P NO.12819 OF 2005 2

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly informed the Court that as of today no cancellation order qua the flat in question has been passed against the petitioner. However, learned counsel has further informed that after the possession of the flat in question was offered to the petitioner in the year 1997 and the petitioner failed to take the said possession, some unauthorised occupants have entered into the possession of the said flat and as such the petitioner could not be offered the possession of the said flat at this stage.

However, the learned counsel has referred to the documents on that account to contend that the proceedings for eviction of the said unauthorised occupants have already been initiated.

Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana-respondent no.3 to hand over the possession of the flat in question after getting the same vacated from the unauthorised occupants within a period of 6 months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

However, at the time of handing over the possession, the petitioner would be required to clear all the outstanding dues which are due and payable by him.

The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

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

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

August 3, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu 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.