SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R. K. AGRAWAL
Sukh Ram Bishnoi – Appellant
Versus
Huda – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Shreshth Jain, Advocate

ORDER

The Revision Petition Nos.1066 & 1067 of 2011 were filed by the Applicants/Complainants challenging the Order dated 21.01.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal Nos. 164 & 165 of 2008, whereby the Orders passed the District Forum allowing the Complaints were set aside and Appeals filed by the Opposite Party/Non-Applicant, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) were allowed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mr. Jora Ram Bishnoi, the Complainant in RP No. 1066 / 2011, (hereinafter ‘Complainant’), had applied for allotment of 8 marla plot under the ‘Discretionary Quota’ (hereinafter ‘DQ’) in 1986 depositing Rs.3,883/- as earnest money. Following a change of the Government, all allotments under this DQ were cancelled. The allottees of the DQ filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana titled “S.R. Dass Vs. State of Haryana”. The writ was successful and the Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders of cancellation of plots under DQ in 1988. SLP by the Government of Haryana before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Following this, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top