{"id":89320,"date":"2009-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-19T13:10:07","modified_gmt":"2015-09-19T07:40:07","slug":"ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009<\/div>\n
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n\n                               CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                     Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008\n                                            Date of Decision: 6.10.2009\n\n\n\nM\/s Bhardwaj Welfare Trust and another\n                                                                  Petitioners\n                                  Versus\n\nThe Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others\n\n                                                               Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n\nPresent:    Mr.A.S.Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners\n            Mr.Pawan Kumar Mutneja and Mr.Raghujeet Madan,\n            Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4\n            Mr.Tarunveer Vashisth, Additional Advocate General, Haryana\n\n\n                         .....\n\nJasbir Singh, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The petitioner was allotted a plot measuring four acres on<\/p>\n
19.3.1991. In that plot, the petitioner raised construction and established a<\/p>\n
hospital, which was commenced in the year 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner<\/p>\n
moved an application for allotment of additional land, to set up a<\/p>\n
Paramedical Sciences Institute and also Nursing Hostel etc. Against that<\/p>\n
application, another plot measuring four acres was allotted to the petitioner<\/p>\n
vide allotment letter dated 20.7.1995 (P3). As per terms and conditions of<\/p>\n
the allotment, construction of the building was to be completed within two<\/p>\n
years from the date of offer of possession. Admittedly, possession of the<\/p>\n
plot in question was delivered to the petitioner on 28.7.1995. It is also an<\/p>\n
admitted fact that in the meantime, the petitioner had paid the entire
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration amount by 2.7.1997. Construction was not raised within two<\/p>\n
years. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 17(3) of the<\/p>\n
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1997 (in short the Act) on<\/p>\n
17.12.1997, however, nothing was done, which attracted notice under<\/p>\n
Section 17(4) of the Act on 17.10.1999 and the case was kept for personal<\/p>\n
hearing for 11.11.1999. In the meantime, on an application moved, vide<\/p>\n
order dated 5.11.1999, extension of three years, to raise construction, was<\/p>\n
granted to the petitioner i.e. upto 19.7.2000. The petitioner deposited the<\/p>\n
extension fee, however, the building was not constructed. Again a notice<\/p>\n
under Section 17(3) of the Act was sent to the petitioner on 21.4.2003,<\/p>\n
which failed to yield any result. Thereafter, notice under Section 17(4) of<\/p>\n
the Act was served on the petitioner on 22.7.2005. The petitioner submitted<\/p>\n
written reply to the contents of the notice issued under Section 17(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act, which was found unsatisfactory. Then personal hearing was given to<\/p>\n
the petitioner and after looking into reasons given by the petitioner, for non-<\/p>\n
construction, prayer for further extension of time to raise construction was<\/p>\n
rejected and the plot was ordered to be resumed vide order dated 27.2.2006<\/p>\n
(P14). Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 31.7.2006 (P15).<\/p>\n
Revision petition filed by the petitioner also met the same fate on 5.8.2008<\/p>\n
(P16). Hence, this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
             Upon notice, reply has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4,<\/p>\n
wherein the authorities have tried to justify passing of the orders, mentioned<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the parties heard.\n<\/p>\n
             Ordinarily, to look into violations of contractual obligation<\/p>\n
between the parties, a writ petition, under the provisions of Article 226 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India may not be competent, however, where action of
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
the State\/ Public Authority is unfair and unjustified, in given cases, this<\/p>\n
Court may look into action taken by the public authorities.<\/p>\n
             Argument raised by counsel for the petitioner has to be tested<\/p>\n
on the basis of above said principle.\n<\/p>\n
             The petitioner was allotted a plot measuring four acres in the<\/p>\n
year 1991, whereon it has constructed a hospital, which was commissioned<\/p>\n
in the year 1996. On an application moved by the petitioner, an additional<\/p>\n
area of four acres of land was allotted to the petitioner for an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.1.09 crores, vide allotment letter dated 20.7.1995, to set up a<\/p>\n
Paramedical Sciences Institute and also Nursing Hostel etc.<\/p>\n
             Before dealing with the arguments raised by counsel for both<\/p>\n
the parties, it is necessary to note down some relevant terms and conditions<\/p>\n
of the allotment letter:-\n<\/p>\n
             “1. to 7.      xxx         xxx             xxx<\/p>\n
             8.     Before starting admission to Nursing Classes a detailed<\/p>\n
                    project report will be prepared and submitted to the<\/p>\n
                    Director General Health Services, Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
             9.     The students shall be admitted with prior technical<\/p>\n
                    approval of the State Nursing Council or State Govt. or<\/p>\n
                    Central Nursing Council as required under law.\n<\/p>\n
             10.    A nominee of the Director General Health Services will<\/p>\n
                    be included in the selection process of candidates for<\/p>\n
                    admission to the Nursing Classes.\n<\/p>\n
             11.    The trust shall agree that before starting the institution<\/p>\n
                    the trust shall convey acceptance to abide by the<\/p>\n
                    directions and guidelines issued by the State Govt. in
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
                   public interest in relation to this institution or Nursing<\/p>\n
                   Education and Training in general, from time to time.<\/p>\n
            12.    The trust shall seek affiliation with Regional University<\/p>\n
                   for running their courses.”\n<\/p>\n
            13. to 16.            xxx         xxx            xxx<\/p>\n
            17.    The plot\/ building shall not be used for any purpose<\/p>\n
                   other than for which it has been allotted in accordance<\/p>\n
                   with the plans approved by the competent authority. No<\/p>\n
                   obnoxious trade shall be carried out in or on any<\/p>\n
                   building.\n<\/p>\n
            18. to 20.   xxx            xxx           xxx<\/p>\n
            21.    The construction of the building shall have to be<\/p>\n
                   completed within two (2) years of the date of offer of<\/p>\n
                   possession.”\n<\/p>\n
            22. to 28.   xxx            xxx           xxx”\n<\/p>\n
As per terms and conditions of the allotment, construction of the building<\/p>\n
shall have to be completed within two years from the date of offer of<\/p>\n
possession i.e. 28.7.1995.     A reading of conditions, mentioned above,<\/p>\n
clearly indicates that it was nowhere stipulated in the allotment letter that<\/p>\n
before raising construction, any permission, to establish Paramedical<\/p>\n
Sciences Institute has to be obtained from any authority. The process of<\/p>\n
taking permission will start only when building is complete, infrastructure is<\/p>\n
established and then before admission, detailed project report was to be<\/p>\n
submitted to Director General, Health Services, Haryana. Condition Nos.9<\/p>\n
and 10 deal with the process of selection of students for admission in the<\/p>\n
institute. Condition No.11 talks of undertaking by the petitioner, before<\/p>\n
starting the institute, to comply with the guidelines issued by the State
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
government in relation to such like institutes.       Clause No.12 talks of<\/p>\n
affiliation with some Regional University for running the courses.<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the<\/p>\n
petitioner has failed to construct the building for reasons beyond its control.<\/p>\n
Initially, there was labour problem in the hospital run by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Subsequent thereto, despite many applications made by the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
competent authority had not given permission to start the institute, which<\/p>\n
resulted into delay in constructing the building. It is further contention of<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner that notice under Section 17(3) of the Act was<\/p>\n
never received by the petitioner as it was sent at a wrong address. It is<\/p>\n
prayer of counsel for the petitioner that on account of that, the impugned<\/p>\n
orders deserve to be set aside. Counsel further argued that the resumption<\/p>\n
order should have been passed at the end, before that the authorities were<\/p>\n
supposed to extend time for construction of the building by imposing some<\/p>\n
penalty etc., as is envisaged under Section 55 of the Act.           Action of<\/p>\n
resumption is the last resort to be applied by the Estate Officer. To say so,<\/p>\n
primary reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court<\/p>\n
in Shri Ram Puri v. The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh,<\/a> 1982 PLR 388<\/p>\n
and a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd.<\/p>\n
v. U.T. Chandigarh and others<\/a> (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 130. It was<\/p>\n
prayed that the writ petition be allowed, impugned orders be set aside and<\/p>\n
extension be granted to the petitioner to construct the building.<\/p>\n
             Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents. He by making reference to act and conduct of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
tried to impress upon the Court that from the very beginning, intention of<\/p>\n
the petitioner was not to start the institute within the stipulated period. The<\/p>\n
petitioner took a chance, did not raise the construction even after getting
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
further extension of three years, which came to an end in the year 2000.<\/p>\n
Nothing was done even thereafter, no application was moved to get further<\/p>\n
extension. The petitioner kept mum, even did not wake up, when notice<\/p>\n
under Section 17(3) of the Act was issued in the year 2003. After waiting<\/p>\n
for a sufficient time, another notice under Section 17(4) of the Act was<\/p>\n
issued in the year 2005, which was responded by the petitioner by filing a<\/p>\n
written reply dated 4.8.2005 (P13) to the contents of the notice under<\/p>\n
Section 17(3) of the Act, however, explanation given was found to be<\/p>\n
unsatisfactory, which resulted into passing of the order of resumption on<\/p>\n
27.2.2006. Counsel for the respondents, by making reference to various<\/p>\n
documents on record, vehemently argued that resumption had been used as<\/p>\n
a last resort when the petitioner failed to act as per terms and conditions of<\/p>\n
the allotment letter dated 20.7.1995 (P3). Counsel further argued that it is a<\/p>\n
case of breach of contractual obligation, cast upon the petitioner vide<\/p>\n
allotment letter, mentioned above, action taken is reasonable and justified,<\/p>\n
as such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner be not entertained.<\/p>\n
             After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that this<\/p>\n
writ petition deserves dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
             Allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 20.7.1995. As<\/p>\n
per condition No.21 of the allotment letter, building was to be constructed<\/p>\n
within two years from the date of taking over possession of the land, in<\/p>\n
question, which admittedly, was delivered on 28.7.1995. For a period of<\/p>\n
more than one year and six months, nothing was done, building plan of<\/p>\n
Paramedical Sciences Institute was approved on 31.12.1998 and building<\/p>\n
plan for construction of Nursing Hostel and Staff Quarters was approved on<\/p>\n
22.1.2000. After getting the building plans sanctioned, not even a single<\/p>\n
brick was laid, within a period of two years, which resulted into issuance of
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
notice under Section 17(3) of the Act on 17.12.1997, however, it failed to<\/p>\n
get any result, construction was not started at the site. Another notice under<\/p>\n
Section 17(3) of the Act was issued on 13.9.1999. The petitioner filed reply<\/p>\n
to the same, which was found unsatisfactory and an opportunity was given<\/p>\n
to the petitioner for personal hearing as per provisions of Section 17(4) of<\/p>\n
the Act. Date of personal hearing was fixed as 11.11.1999. Action taken by<\/p>\n
the authorities, made the petitioner to move an application for extension of<\/p>\n
time to construct the building. On request made, it was granted vide order<\/p>\n
dated 5.11.1999 for a further period of three years i.e. upto 19.7.2000. Even<\/p>\n
during this period, no construction was raised. There is no evidence on<\/p>\n
record to show that the petitioner started any correspondence with the<\/p>\n
competent authority to start the institution. Otherwise also, as has been<\/p>\n
discussed earlier, no such prior permission was needed. Steps mentioned in<\/p>\n
Clause 8 to 12 of the allotment letter will start only after construction of<\/p>\n
building not prior thereto. Be that as it may, it is otherwise also clear that<\/p>\n
the petitioner wrote a letter, for the first time, to the Commissioner, Health<\/p>\n
Family Welfare and Medical Education, State of Haryana on 11.12.2004<\/p>\n
(P7) i.e. after a period of nine years of the allotment of land to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The petitioner submitted an application to get no objection, to start the<\/p>\n
institute only on 8.2.2005 (P8). For this delay of 9\/10 years, no explanation<\/p>\n
has been given at any time. It appears that in the meantime, the authorities<\/p>\n
issued a notice under Section 17(3) of the Act to the petitioner in the month<\/p>\n
of November 2003. As per finding given by the authorities below, the<\/p>\n
notice was given at the correct address. It is also not in dispute that it was<\/p>\n
the same address, at which, earlier notices were received by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
the years 1997 and 1999. The petitioner failed to respond to that notice.<\/p>\n
The authorities also kept mum without any justification.           Notice under
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 17(4) of the Act was issued on 17.6.2005. By pretending that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had received a copy of the notice under Section 17(3) of the Act,<\/p>\n
with the subsequent notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the<\/p>\n
contents of the notice under Section 17(3) of the Act on 4.8.2005 (P13). To<\/p>\n
condone the delay, in not raising the construction, it was stated that no<\/p>\n
objection certificate, to start the institute, has not been granted by the<\/p>\n
competent authority. It was further stated that in view of ban imposed by<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in raising the construction, the petitioner failed<\/p>\n
to construct the building. It is an admitted fact that revised building plan<\/p>\n
was submitted for approval only on 11.12.1998, which was approved on<\/p>\n
4.1.1999. It is also an admitted fact that except constructing a boundary<\/p>\n
wall, no other construction was raised by the petitioner. It was further<\/p>\n
stated that there was some labour unrest in the hospital run by the petitioner<\/p>\n
which was a cause for not constructing the building. Lame excuses raised<\/p>\n
by the petitioner were found unsatisfactory by the authority concerned and<\/p>\n
this Court is also convinced regarding falsity of reasons given, for not<\/p>\n
raising construction. There is no proof on record that ever any ban was<\/p>\n
imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to raise construction over the land<\/p>\n
allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner made no attempt to get permission,<\/p>\n
if any, needed from the authorities concerned to start the institute. It moved<\/p>\n
an application only after nine years of allotment i.e. in the year 2004.<\/p>\n
Before that, nothing was done.         Respondent No.3 has rejected the<\/p>\n
contentions, raised by the petitioner, in the following manner:-<\/p>\n
                   “I have heard the arguments and carefully gone through<\/p>\n
             the case file, it is an admitted fact that the normal period of<\/p>\n
             construction expired in July, 1997 and the maximum period of<\/p>\n
             extension allowed under the HUDA policy expired in July,
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
           2000. The petitioner has raised the legal argument that the<\/p>\n
           notice under Section 17(3) was never received by him, as it<\/p>\n
           was sent at the wrong address. However, this not borne out<\/p>\n
           from the record of the case. As per page 226 of the allottee<\/p>\n
           file, the notice under Section 17(3) was sent at the correct<\/p>\n
           address by registered post. The same is to be considered as<\/p>\n
           duly delivered to the petitioner as per the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
           42 of the HUDA Act, since the same was never received back<\/p>\n
           undelivered. Therefore, this argument of the petitioner does<\/p>\n
           not hold water.       The petitioner admits that notice under<\/p>\n
           Section 17(4) was received by him and he was also given an<\/p>\n
           opportunity of hearing. The allottee was given the maximum<\/p>\n
           extension allowed of 3 years upto July, 2000, after payment of<\/p>\n
           extension fee. There is no provision under the HUDA policy<\/p>\n
           for granting more than five years period for construction of<\/p>\n
           Institutional Site.   A feeble attempt has been made by the<\/p>\n
           petitioner to explain why he failed to carry out construction<\/p>\n
           within the stipulated period of five years. In para 4 of the<\/p>\n
           petition, a reference has been made to a ban imposed by<\/p>\n
           Hon’ble Supreme Court within a particular radius of Badkhal<\/p>\n
           Lake.   However, as pointed out by Estate Officer, HUDA,<\/p>\n
           Faridabad, Sector-16 Faridabad did not come within the ambit<\/p>\n
           of this ban. Similarly, in para 6 of the petition it has been<\/p>\n
           mentioned that the petitioner had to face unprecedented labour<\/p>\n
           problem in its neighbouring Hospital because of which all<\/p>\n
           activities came to a stand still. It is very relevant to note that<\/p>\n
           the record of Estate Officer does not contain a single paper
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
            which shows that at any time between July 2000 and December<\/p>\n
            2003 the petitioner made any attempt to explain to the Estate<\/p>\n
            Officer the problems that he was facing due to which he could<\/p>\n
            not start and complete construction. Not a single application<\/p>\n
            in writing has been made to the Estate Officer giving reasons<\/p>\n
            why construction could not be started and asking for more<\/p>\n
            time.   It is only when proceedings under Section 17 were<\/p>\n
            belatedly started by the Estate Officer in December 2003, that<\/p>\n
            the petitioner camp up with some explanation. The Section 17<\/p>\n
            proceedings also continued for a period of more than two<\/p>\n
            years. Even during this period, the petitioner did not initiate<\/p>\n
            the construction. For all the reasons stated above, I have<\/p>\n
            come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the various<\/p>\n
            averments made by the petitioner. More than adequate time<\/p>\n
            and opportunity was available to the petitioner to start and<\/p>\n
            complete construction, which he has miserably failed to do so.<\/p>\n
            Therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Order had been<\/p>\n
            reserved in this case after conclusion of arguments. The same<\/p>\n
            is being pronounced today. May be conveyed to the parties.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It was noticed by the above said officer that even in the year 2008, when<\/p>\n
revision petition was heard, the petitioner made no attempt to raise any<\/p>\n
construction in the meantime, for a period of about 13 years which had<\/p>\n
elapsed from the date of allotment. After going through the contents of<\/p>\n
allotment letter, this Court is convinced that the process mentioned in<\/p>\n
condition Nos.8 to 12 will start only when the question of admitting the<\/p>\n
students in the institute arises and not before that. Even if argument raised<\/p>\n
by counsel for the petitioner is accepted that prior permission to start the
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
construction was needed, the same is liable to be rejected on account of a<\/p>\n
fact that for a period of nine years even an application was not moved in<\/p>\n
that regard. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the resumption<\/p>\n
order was passed as a last resort, so that the land may be allotted to some<\/p>\n
interested party, to develop it, so the institute raised thereon may contribute<\/p>\n
towards development of the country and the society. In the year 1995, when<\/p>\n
this land was allotted to the petitioner, to start Paramedical Sciences<\/p>\n
Institute, admittedly, the nurses were much in demand.         The land was<\/p>\n
allotted at a very cheaper rate so that the petitioner may start the institute<\/p>\n
which may ultimately contribute towards welfare of the society by providing<\/p>\n
good paramedical staff and other facilities. By its inaction, the petitioner<\/p>\n
has failed to achieve the object with which the land was allotted to it at a<\/p>\n
very cheaper rate. Ratio of judgment in Shri Ram Puri’s case (supra) is not<\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of this case, as has been discussed earlier, in view of<\/p>\n
act and conduct of the petitioner, no option was left with the authorities<\/p>\n
except to resume the plot allotted to it. In the case of Teri Oat Estates (P)<\/p>\n
Ltd’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held<\/p>\n
that it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case to say whether<\/p>\n
power of resumption has rightly been used or not. Following paragraphs in<\/p>\n
the judgment indicate in that regard:-\n<\/p>\n
             “22. One of the questions which, therefore, must always be<\/p>\n
             posed by the Estate Officer, while initiating a proceeding<\/p>\n
             under Section 8-A of the Act, is as to whether the drastic power<\/p>\n
             of resumption and forfeiture has been taken recourse to as a<\/p>\n
             last resort. The order of the Estate Officer dated 13.8.1992,<\/p>\n
             does not say so. No reason has also been assigned in the said<\/p>\n
             order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             24.   It is, therefore, not a case where the court will have to<\/p>\n
             take one stand or the other in the light of the statutory<\/p>\n
             provisions. The question as to whether the extreme power of<\/p>\n
             resumption and forfeiture has rightly been applied or not will<\/p>\n
             depend upon the factual matrix obtaining in each case. Each<\/p>\n
             case may, therefore, have to be viewed separately and no hard-<\/p>\n
             and-fast rule can be laid down therefore. In a case of this<\/p>\n
             nature, therefore, the action of the Estate Officer and other<\/p>\n
             statutory authorities having regard to the factual matrix<\/p>\n
             obtaining in each case must be viewed from the angle as to<\/p>\n
             whether the same attracts the wrath of Article 14 of the<\/p>\n
             Constitution of India or not.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             This Court feels that in view of the facts mentioned above,<\/p>\n
action of the Estate Officer in resuming the plot, was perfectly justified.<\/p>\n
             Contention of counsel for the petitioner that notice under<\/p>\n
Section 17(3) of the Act was not received by it, is of no significance. It has<\/p>\n
come on record that in the years 1997\/99, notice under Section 17(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act was also issued to the petitioner which was received by it and reply was<\/p>\n
filed. At the time of argument, it was specifically stated by counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents that the notice was issued in the year 2003 also, at the same<\/p>\n
address. Be that as it may, once the petitioner was allowed to file reply to<\/p>\n
the contents of the notice under Section 17(3) of the Act and was allowed to<\/p>\n
explain delay in raising the construction, whether such a notice was<\/p>\n
received or not, this fact lost it significance. The petitioner’s reply to the<\/p>\n
contents of notice under Section 17(3) of the Act on 4.8.2005 (P13) was<\/p>\n
taken note and discussed by the authorities before passing the order of<\/p>\n
resumption, that too after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. Counsel
\n Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
for the petitioner has miserably failed to show the reason for not<\/p>\n
constructing the building in time.\n<\/p>\n
                In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
                Writ petition stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.10.2009                                         (Jasbir Singh)\ngk                                                    Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16936 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.10.2009 M\/s Bhardwaj Welfare Trust and another Petitioners Versus The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And ... vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And ... vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-19T07:40:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-19T07:40:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3459,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And ... vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-19T07:40:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And ... vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And ... vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-19T07:40:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-19T07:40:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009"},"wordCount":3459,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009","name":"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And ... vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-19T07:40:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhardwaj-welfare-trust-and-vs-the-estate-officer-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Bhardwaj Welfare Trust And … vs The Estate Officer on 6 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89320","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=89320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}