In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Reserved on: 14.1.2025 Date of Decision: 24.1.2025 Sonika Mahajan @ Palak ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. R.S.Bains, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aarushi Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No. 3, wherebys the application moved by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) for regularizing the allotment of Flat No. 28FF- Block-C, Nirmal Shaya Apartment, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, became declined, thus on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show any document with regard to her continuous possession for the last 12 years over the said property.

Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued, that earlier the petitioner had preferred CWP No. 14120 of 2024, before this Court, thus seeking the issuance of directions upon the authorities concerned, to regularize the allotment of Flat No. 28FF, Block-C, Nirmal Shaya Apartment, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Through an order made thereons, on 16.10.2024, the said petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. The relevant paras of the order (supra) passed by the Division Bench of this Court on the petition (supra) become extracted hereinafter.

“x x x x

2. Having argued the matter at some length, parties have arrived at a consensus. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within a period of two weeks from today, the petitioner shall move an application under the provisions of the Punjab Management and Transfer of Municipal Properties Act, 2020 (for short ‘the 2020 Act’) seeking proprietary rights of flat No.28 FF, Block-C, Nirmal Shaya Apartments, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that on receipt of the said application alongwith the requisite documents as envisaged under the 2020 Act, a decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks thereafter and a speaking order shall be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the statements made by them. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties binding them to the same. This Court is sanguine that the authority concerned shall deal with the matter in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice.

x x x x”

3. The learned senior counsel further submits, that in pursuance to the order (supra) the petitioner has moved an application before the authorities concerned. However, vide impugned order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), the claim of the petitioner became rejected. The relevant paras of the order (supra) become extracted hereinafter.

“In the present case the petitioner has submitted electricity bills of only few dates and the same are not in the name of the petitioner. Moreover the said bills do not prove that she was in continuous possession of the property for the last 12 years. The petitioner was informed about the same that she was required to provide the said bills or proof showing the documents that she was in continuous possession of the property for the last 12 years. But till date she failed to provide any documents in lieu of the same.

Thus, in view of the above-mentioned facts, the claim of the petitioner for considering her case to be covered under the Rules of 2020 is rejected and the petitioner is held not entitled to get the benefit under the said Rules as the proof regarding her continuous possession for the last 12 years has not been submitted by the petitioner. The spea