IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 103 Brahm Dutt Sh. Ajit Balaji Joshi, Vikas Pradhikaran, C CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) proceedings against the respondent 27.9.2018 CWP-24824 Development Authority and others” vide which the petition was disposed of with a direction Officer, HUDA, Chief Administrator, HUDA dated 13.4.2018 and allot an alternative plot to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.” COCP-1760-2023 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1760 of 2023 Date of decision : Brahm Dutt Versus Sh. Ajit Balaji Joshi, IAS, Chief Administrator, Haryana Shaheri Vikas Pradhikaran, C-3, Sector 6, Panchkula and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. G.S. Bains, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate with Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Advocate for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying the order dated 27.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by a Division 24824-2018 titled as “Brahm Dutt vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others” vide which the petition was disposed of with a direction “….to Administrator, HUDA, and Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad to give effect to the order passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA dated 13.4.2018 and allot an alternative plot to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.” 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1760 of 2023 (O & M) Date of decision :-26.08.2025 …..Petitioner IAS, Chief Administrator, Haryana Shaheri 3, Sector 6, Panchkula and others …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA G.S. Bains, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate with Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Advocate for the respondents. Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt for not complying the order dated Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Dutt vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others” vide which the petition was “….to Administrator, HUDA, and Estate Faridabad to give effect to the order passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA dated 13.4.2018 and allot an alternative plot to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.26 18.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document points out that first and foremost the present petition has been filed with a delay of 1633 days and is therefore not maintainable in terms of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. petitioner was on dated 01.2.2011; and in compliance of order dated 27.9.2018 (Annexure P the petitioner on 12.7.2024 and possession has also been given to the petitioner. It is s petitioner an amount of Rs.13,77,486/ being 9% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. It is submitted that accordingly the direction of this Court has been duly complied with. direction is required to be issued, hence, the present petition is hereby disposed of the allotment made by the respondents, the challenge the same in accordance with law. August 26 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No COCP-1760-2023 (O & M) At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents points out that first and foremost the present petition has been filed with a delay of 1633 days and is therefore not maintainable in terms Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is further submitted that the original allotment of the petitioner was on dated 01.2.2011; and in compliance of order dated 27.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) an alternate plot has now been allotted to the petitioner on 12.7.2024 and possession has also been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that on the delayed possession given to the petitioner an amount of Rs.13,77,486/- has been paid to the petitioner being 9% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. It is submitted that accordingly the direction of this Court has been duly complied In view of the undisputed facts noted above, no further direction is required to be issued, hence, the present petition is hereby disposed of. In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the payment as also the allotment made by the respondents, the challenge the same in accordance with law. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 6, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 arned counsel for the respondents points out that first and foremost the present petition has been filed with a delay of 1633 days and is therefore not maintainable in terms Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. the original allotment of the petitioner was on dated 01.2.2011; and in compliance of order dated 1) an alternate plot has now been allotted to the petitioner on 12.7.2024 and possession has also been given to the on the delayed possession given to the has been paid to the petitioner being 9% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. It is submitted that accordingly the direction of this Court has been duly complied In view of the undisputed facts noted above, no further direction is required to be issued, hence, the present petition is hereby In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the payment as also the allotment made by the respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.26 18.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document