COCP No. 851 of 2008 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
...
COCP No. 851 of 2008
Date of decision: July 13, 2009
Bhola Dutt Bhatt son of Bachi Ram ..Petitioner.
Versus
D.S.Dhesi and others ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. R.B.Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. S.K.Hooda, Sr. DAG,Haryana
for the respondents
..
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral)
In this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged that the
petitioner had filed CWP No.11882 of 2002 for the issuance of directions to the
respondents to register the sale deed and hand over the possession of plot No.
J-111 Edenburg City, Faridabad which was allotted to him . It is further the case
of the petitioner that this court vide judgment dated 27.5.2005 disposed of the
aforesaid writ petition whereby the petitioner was to submit the representation
within 15 days and the same was to be decided by the competent authority
within three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner.
It is the further case of the petitioner that vide Annexure P-3, he
submitted a representation to the respondents in terms of the aforesaid decision
and the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh passed
order dated 14.12.2005 whereby it was found that the petitioner had paid full
amount of the plot and in spite of that the builder i.e. M/s Durga Builders (Pvt.)
Ltd. has not handed over the possession of the plot to the petitioner and
Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana directed the said respondent vide
Annexure P-4 to hand over the possession of the plot within three weeks from
the issuance of the said letter.
COCP No. 851 of 2008 2
It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent No.3
has failed to hand over the possession of the plot to him and has thus violated
the orders passed by this Court.
I have perused the documents placed on record of this petition and
find that M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Limited is already under liquidation in a
Company Petition No.238 of 2005 which is pending before the Delhi High Court.
It may also be seen that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court has
disposed of the writ petition observing that the representation of the petitioner
shall be decided by the competent authority. It is not in dispute that competent
authority has already decided the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and
has in fact held that the Builder is liable to hand over the possession of the plot
to him. There was no direction issued by this Court to the aforesaid Builder to
hand over the possession. Moreover, order Annexure P-4 which in fact is sought
to be complied with, is not passed by a Court as defined under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
Thus I find that the directions passed by this Court have been fully
complied with.
Rule discharged.
July 13, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
nk JUDGE