Roop Chand vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

The present application has been filed for placing on record Annexure P-17.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Annexure P-17 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

The present application has been filed for placing on record Annexure P-18.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Annexure P-18 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to take necessary action against the private respondents as per the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1975, for illegally blocking the 24-metre-wide road in front of the petitioner's house, which has been constructed by the private respondents as per their Licence No.113 of 2011 dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P-10) and 09.10.2020 (Annexure P-11). A further prayer has been made for directing the official respondents to ensure proper ingress to and egress from the petitioner's private land through the aforesaid 24-metre-wide road, which has been constructed by the private respondents as per the Master Plan and their Licence No.113 of 2011 dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P-10) and 09.10.2020 (Annexure P-11).

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his limited grievance may be considered to the extent that the representation dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure P-17), which has been addressed to respondent No.2, may be considered and decided by respondent No.2 in accordance with law and in a time-bound manner.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submitted that in view of the limited prayer made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, he has no objection in case time bound direction is issued in this regard.

Mr. Akshay Jindal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also submitted that in view of the limited prayer made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, he has no objection to such a direction being issued.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without calling for a reply from the respondents and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure P-17), strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the petitioner.