High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anu Gupta And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anu Gupta And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 May, 2009
LPA No. 314 of 2009                                                    1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                             LPA No. 314 of 2009
                                             Date of decision: 4.5.2009

Anu Gupta and others

                                                                 ...Appellants
                                    Versus
State of Haryana and others

                                                              ...Respondent__

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellants.

-.-

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral)

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2008. The operative part thereof reads as

under:-

“Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that

the Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula is directed to

reconsider the claim of the petitioners No. 1 to 4 in terms of the

policy dated 10th September 1987 and if found eligible, to allot

them plots as per their entitelemnt. The needful shall be done

within a period of three months from the date of certified copy

of this order is produced before him.”

2. The appellants-writ petitioners, sought directions for allotment

of plot as per policy, Annexure P-14. The said claim, however, was rejected

on the ground that the petitioners were not the owners for the prescribed

period preceding the acquisition.

3. Contention on behalf of the petitioners was that requirement of
LPA No. 314 of 2009 2

five years ownership prior to acquisition had been relaxed subsequently and

accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in above terms.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding given

by the learned Single Judge.

6. The appeal is dismissed.



                                            (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                JUDGE


4.5.2009                                    (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
mk                                               JUDGE