C.W.P. No.6232 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 16.09.2008
Smt.Chanchal Kaur and another .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
Present : Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Additional AG, Haryana.
-.-
UMA NATH SINGH, J.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order
on 3.7.2008:
“The only dispute is with regard to interest component as
to from which date it has to be charged. Mr.Malik says
that it is to be charged from 1982. On the other hand,
counsel for the petitioners contended that it is from the
date when the order was passed i.e. 7.10.1999.
In our order dated 19.3.2008, we had made it clear
that interest @ 10% be charged from the petitioners from
the date they have been using the land in dispute.
Mr.Malik says that he will seek instructions from
which date the petitioners have been using the land in
dispute.”
However, till date, there is no compliance of this order and this matter is
pending only for resolution of a small issue as regards cut off date for
payment of interest @ 10%.
Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that admittedly, offer
in respect of vacant land lying between two houses as being sandwiched
C.W.P. No.6232 of 2007 2
was given to him in the year 1985 in terms of State policy that came in force
in the year 1984. Petitioners raised constructions over the land after
sanction of building plan on 7.10.1989, and thereafter, they have been using
that land continuously. Further, petitioners also deposited a sum of
Rs.4,61,115/- towards compliance of the demand raised by Authority.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that as per
decree in a suit between two brothers, this has come on record that
petitioners started using the land even before 1984, probably from 1982.
In the writ petition, we are not supposed to go into a disputed
question of facts. However, in terms of statement given by Additional
Advocate General, Haryana, that a decision would be taken on the basis of
record, this writ petition is disposed of, giving such direction to Authority
concerned.
This writ petition is, thus, disposed of, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to Authority concerned to
find out the date of using of commencement of use of land by the
petitioners, on the basis of record and give necessary details for recording
the cut off date.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
(UMA NATH SINGH)
JUDGE
16-09-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
*mohinder JUDGE