IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 12300 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: November 7, 2008
Rajinder Kumar Godara
...Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has claimed that his application for
allotment of residential plot in Sector 57, Gurgaon, was not
considered because the registration number given to him, namely,
G57-056608 was also given to one Shri Shiv Nath Rai. The
respondents in the impugned order passed on the direction issued by
this Court in C.W.P. No. 6476 of 2005, filed by the petitioner, have
conceded that the petitioner Shri Rajinder Singh Godara and one Shri
Shiv Nath Rai were given the aforementioned registration number.
C.W.P. No. 12330 of 2007 2
However, the application number of both the persons was different
and in the draw of lot held on 25.11.2004, Application No. 0103441,
submitted by Shri Shiv Nath Rai was successful. Accordingly, Plot
No. 1721P was allotted to him on 21.1.2005. The respondents have
also placed on record along with the written statement the slip which
was put in the draw of lot and the same bears the application number
as well as Registration No. Therefore, there is no issue with regard to
the identity of the successful applicant. The writ petition is wholly
misconceived and is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons aforementioned this petition fails and the
same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
November 7, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor