R.C. CHAWLA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-1996-1-466-467
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A
JANUARY 12, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JI.]
Housing :
Haryana Urban Developmenl Authorit)~Allotment of residential C pre1nises-Used .for co1nmercial purpose de.fvin!{ c:ondition~· of allotment-Ordered to comp(v with the cnnditiom~HUDA at liberty lo ver~fv--{f it is satf3:fie~l that conimercial u.\·e is stopped it shall withdraw the resu1nption order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2343 of D 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.90 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.. No. 5576 of 1988.
S.K. Bagga and Ms. S. Bagga for the Appellant. E I.S. Goyal and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. F As per the orders of this Court passed earlier, if the appellant wants to avail of the allotment, he necessarily has to comply with the conditions of allotment . Consequently, he cannot use allotted residential premises for commercial purpose. The appellant has filed an affidavit verified on January 4, 1996 stating, among other things, thus : G "Thal as per the order of Honourable Supreme Court of India, I have got the conunercial use of my house stopped w.e.f. 2.1.96.
The above statement is true to the best of my knowledge."
H The learned counsel for the respondents states that he does not have 466
R.C. CHAWLA v. STATE 467 any inforn1ation as to what was the action taken by the authorities in that behalf. Sri S.K. Bagga, the learned counsel has shown to the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement also was communicated to the HUDA and the respondents. The respondents are at liberty to verify whether the appellant had stopp6d use of the premises for commercial use w.e.f. January 2, 1996 and on being so satisfied, they are directed to withdraw the impugned resumption order.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G.N. Appeal disposed of.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0