IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP NO. 5026 OF 2007
DECIDED ON : 06.03.2009
Naranjan Singh
...Petitioner
versus
The Amritsar Improvement Trust
and another
...Respondents
A N D
CWP NO. 12925 OF 2008
Basant Singh and others
...Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
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 ?
Present : Mr. G. S. Bajwa, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab,
for respondent No.2.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 12925 of 2008
and No.5026 of 2007, as common question of law and facts are
involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken
from CWP NO. 5026 of 2007.
The petitioner seeks a direction for allotment of plot
measuring 500 sq. yards under the category of ‘displaced
persons’ in the Ajnala Road Extension Scheme floated by the
Improvement Trust, Amritsar.
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto,
reply-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that his claim
is securely answered in his favour by a Division Bench judgment
of this Court dated May 08, 2006 passed in LPA No. 751 of
1992 (Sushma Palta and others vs. State of Punjab and
others).
Learned counsel for the respondent-Trust, on the other
hand, points out that they have already challenged the judgment
of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and ad-interim
stay has been granted in their favour.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, these
writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-
Trust to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of
Division Bench judgment of this Court dated May 08, 2006 in
Sushma Palta’s case (supra). However, if the respondents
arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners’ claim is covered by
the said judgment, they need not to implement such a decision
till the matter is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is further directed that the consequential relief, if
any flowing from the final judgment, shall be granted to the
petitioners within a period of three months from the date of
delivery of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Disposed of.
MARCH 06, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE