Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.17655 of 2009

Date of decision: 18th November, 2009

Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra (Regd.)

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Vishav Manav Ruhani Kendra (Regd.) has approached this Court praying that allotment of land measuring 2196 square meter at the rate of Rs.3094/- per square meter is not justifiable, as other organizations, namely Haryana Radhasoami Satsang Association, Sector 25, Panchkula; Jangid Brahman Sabha, Sector 20, Panchkula; and Shri Mata Mansa Devi Dal & Dharamarth Bhandara Committee, Sector 26, Panchkula were allotted the land at the rate of Rs.425/- per square meter. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a charitable/religious organization, therefore, the respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority ought to have applied the rates, which they have notified vide Annexure P-6 for religious/charitable sites. To fortify this submission, learned counsel has relied upon a communication (Annexure P-3) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula. A perusal of communication (Annexure P-3) shows the helplessness of the authorities to demolish and dispossess the religious bodies like the petitioner. Therefore, out of necessity, land was allotted. Letter of allotment was accepted by the petitioner and 25 per cent of the Civil Writ Petition No. 17655 of 2009 2 amount was also paid. Having accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment and by making first deposit in year 2003, petitioner, after six years cannot approach this Court and say that the rates be revised, especially when earlier writ petition making similar prayer was dismissed as withdrawn from a Division Bench of this Court vide order (Annexure P-14).

Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]

JUDGE

November 18, 2009

rps