Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Anupama Patnaik
1996-10-04
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
body1996
DigiLaw.ai
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J. (1) HEARD counsel for the parties. (2) SPECIAL leave granted. (3) IT is rather strange that a simple claim for money was made in a writ petition and was entertained by the High Court and allowed. There are several disputed questions of fact. Each party is alleging that the other party is guilty of violation of the terms of the allotment. The matter is not covered by any statutory provisions. The writ petition itself was misconceived and not ought to have been entertained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.