Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions arising out of the same impugned orders, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and Annexures are mentioned from CRM No.M-12751 of 2005 titled as “Ramesh Kumar Vohra Vs. State of Haryana” in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context.

2. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the records (judgment Annexure P20), is that the industrial plot, bearing No.28, situated in Industrial Area Phase-1, Urban Estate, Panchkula, was initially allotted to Ved Parkash Kakria, through the medium of allotment letter dated 8.10.1973 (Annexure P1). He was stated to have sold the same to complainant Suresh Kumar Bajaj son of Avinash Bajaj and received the consideration amount, by way of agreement to sell dated 24.4.1980. The allottee also executed the general power of attorney and Will in his (proposed vendee) favour. Avinash Bajaj, father