CWP-11036 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (144) Naresh Agrawal and Anr. State of Haryana and Ors. CORAM: Present: SUDHIR SINGH quashing of the approval granted by respondents No.2 and 3 for construction of additional building of Phase 1.1965 acres amended/additional building plan No.2 (Annexure P 2. Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana along with Mr. Haryana, accept notice out that in terms of of Urban Areas Act, 1975, appeal in respect of the grievance raised in the present 11036-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Naresh Agrawal and Anr. Versus State of Haryana and Ors. HON’BLE MR. JUSITCE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Divij Datta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana. **** SUDHIR SINGH, J. (Oral) By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of the approval granted by respondents No.2 and 3 for construction of additional building of Phase acres (Annexure P-18) and the sanctioned/revised/ amended/additional building plan dated 09.08.2024 No.2 (Annexure P-19) and Licence No.99 of 2019 (Annexure P Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana along with Mr. Haryana, accept notice on behalf of respondent out that in terms of Section 19 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, petitioners have an alternative remedy to file an in respect of the grievance raised in the present 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11036-2025 Date of Decision:-01.05.2025 ……Petitioners ……Respondents MR. JUSITCE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Mr. Divij Datta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana. petition, petitioners have sought quashing of the approval granted by respondents No.2 and 3 for construction of additional building of Phase-C over an area measuring 18) and the sanctioned/revised/ dated 09.08.2024 approved by respondent 19) and Licence No.99 of 2019 (Annexure P-8). Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G., Haryana along with Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. They pointed Section 19 of the Haryana Development and Regulation have an alternative remedy to file an in respect of the grievance raised in the present writ petition. 1 2025 01.05.2025 s s petition, petitioners have sought quashing of the approval granted by respondents No.2 and 3 for C over an area measuring 18) and the sanctioned/revised/ approved by respondent Ankur Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Nos.1 and 2. They pointed Section 19 of the Haryana Development and Regulation have an alternative remedy to file an Manju 2025.05.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11036 3. the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. 4. petition is disposed of with under Section a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, that if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner accordance with law May 01, 2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 11036-2025 The learned counsel for the petitioners, could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. Without commenting on the merits of petition is disposed of with a liberty to the under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act before the competent a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, that if any such appeal is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the respondent accordance with law. , 2025. Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners, could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present writ liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal of the aforesaid Act before the competent-authority within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, that if any such appeal is filed by , the same shall be decided by the respondent-authorities, in (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners, could not controvert the case, the present writ petitioners to file an appeal within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, that if any such appeal is filed by es, in Manju 2025.05.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document