Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 May, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060184-DB
CWP No.11982 of 2021 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:060184-DB
and other connected matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11982 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision :01.05.2024
Kuldip Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CWP No.434 of 2021 (O&M)
Jagtar Singh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CWP No.7525 of 2021 (O&M)
Ajmer Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CWP No.3303 of 2022 (O&M)
Swaran Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present : Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jastej Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for GMADA.
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral):
For, we are informed that the matter in issue in this bunch of 4
petitions is identical, these are being disposed of by a common order and
judgment. However, the facts are being derived from CWP-11982-2021.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060184-DB
CWP No.11982 of 2021 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:060184-DB
and other connected matters
The land holding of the petitioners, situated in the revenue estate
of village Chachu Majra, Teshil and District Mohali, was acquired by the
Government of Punjab for a public purpose, namely construction of 200 feet
wide road running from Sectors 66 to 66A, junction to NH 64 (Zirakpur to
Patiala), vide award No.499 dated 25.05.2009.
In essence, the grievance of the petitioners is: even though in
terms of the policy in vogue dated 08.05.2013 (P6), the petitioners are entitled
to allotment of a suitable site/plot measuring 100 Sq. Yds. each under the
oustees category, but their claim has not been addressed to date. And their
applications continue to be pending before respondent No.3.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate, who is
already appearing for GMADA (in CWP-11982-2021), has also caused
appearance (in CWPs-434, 7525-2021 and 3303-2022). He submits that
although a short affidavit has been filed by the Estate Officer, GMADA, but as
the competent authority is still in seizin of the applications submitted by the
petitioners, it would be expedient, if the petitions are disposed of to enable the
respondents-authority to deal with their concerns/grievances and pass
appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Further, he submits that
before any such orders are passed, the petitioners shall also be heard and a
formal communication in this regard shall be issued to them, well in advance.
That being so, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that let
these petitions be disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned
counsel for GMADA. However, he submits, as the claim of the petitioners has
not been addressed for abnormally long period of time, the respondents-
authority be directed to pass necessary orders within a specified time.
To this, learned counsel for GMADA submits that the authority,
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060184-DB
CWP No.11982 of 2021 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:060184-DB
and other connected matters
after hearing the petitioners, as indicated above, would pass the necessary
orders within a period of 3 months from today. Further, he submits that the
petitioners would also be at liberty to submit fresh representations to
supplement/support their claim along with necessary documents within a
period of two weeks from today which shall be taken into consideration while
passing the final order.
In the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the
statements made by learned counsel for the parties, petitions are accordingly
disposed of.
This Court is sanguine that the competent authority shall examine
the matter in the right earnest and pass a comprehensive order, assigning
reasons in support thereof, within the time indicated by the learned counsel for
GMADA.
Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated above, the
authority shall examine the grievance of the petitioners, strictly in accordance
with law.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
01.05.2024
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
