CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 02 P&H CK 0257

M/s Printers Engineers Company vs The State of Haryana and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 February 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J · A.N. Jindal, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 3082 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 330 words

Hemant Gupta, J.—The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 13.01.2012 (Annexure P-14), whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected.

2.

It is a case of gross abuse of process of law. The petitioner was allotted a plot No. 27, Sector 25, Faridabad, but the said plot was resumed on 09.07.1990 u/s 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short ''the Act''). The appeal was dismissed on 17.09.1990. The writ petition (CWP No. 15788 of 1990) filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed on 20.03.1991.

3.

Thereafter, a policy to recall the resumption orders was circulated on 26.09.1991. On the basis of such policy, learned Chief Administrator ordered the restoration of the plot on 14.05.1998 (Annexure P-10). Such order was set aside by the State Government on 06.11.1998 (Annexure P-11). The writ petition (CWP No. 7037 of 1999) filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide detailed speaking order on 24.05.1999. Now after almost 12 years, the petitioner has filed a representation, which has been rejected on 13.01.2012 (Annexure P-14).

4.

Earlier writ petition challenging the resumption was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.03.1991. Subsequently, an order of restoration of the plot was passed by the Chief Administrator, which was set aside by the State Government and affirmed by this Court. After the dismissal of the writ petitions, the status of the petitioner is a rank encroacher on the plot, which was once allotted to him.

5.

We find that no legal or equitable right arises in favour of the petitioner, which may warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, we direct the Haryana Urban Development Authority to submit a status report in respect of the possession of plot in dispute and to explain, as to why the possession has not been taken for such a long period. Such status report be filed within two months.