Sunder Dass Chugh v. HUDA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petitioner's claim, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to conclude the proceedings which they have initiated against respondent No.3 under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The petitioner's case is that he is owner in possession of a residential House No. 1805, Sector – 7, HUDA, Karnal, whereas the third respondent is in possession of House No. 1806, Sector - 7, HUDA, Karnal. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.3 has raised certain unauthorized construction in the rear portion of the house which has led to initiation of proceedings against him under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. Those proceedings, however, are not being concluded by the authorities and as a result thereof, respondent No.3 continues to enjoy the unauthorized construction. C.W.P No. 1420 of 2009 -2- Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on merits of the petitioner's claim, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Estate Officer to conclude the pending proceedings, as early as possible, but not later than 31.03.2009. JANUARY 29, 2009 shalini (SURYA KANT) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioner's claim, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 — s. 17; HUDA Act, 1977 — s. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 Jan 2009. The bench was SURYA KANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.