Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1518 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Housing Board Haryana

2006-04-18

H.S.BHALLA, VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Viney Mittal and j JJ. 1. Petitioner, Naresh Kumar, was allotted a house by Haryana housing Board vide allotment letter dated August 9,2002. It is conceded position by the petitioner that beside the original earnest money of 10%, no further amount was ever deposited by the petitioner at any point of time after the allotment. Consequently, vide order dated may 31,2003, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation of his allotment before the Chairman, housing Board. The appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the appellate authority vide order dated July 6,2004. In the aforesaid appellate order, it was stipulated that since no house was available for allotment to the petitioner, therefore, his name was being kept in the waiting list and a house would be allotted to him in case of cancellation of house of any successful applicant. 2. The petitioner has now approached this court claiming that certain other houses have become available for allotment to the petitioner but in terms of the appellate order dated July 6,2004 passed by the chairman,housing Bord, no house house has been allotted to him so far. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent-Board. In the written statement a specific stand has been taken that no such house which could be allotted to the petitioner, as per his eligibility is available and,therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any allotment. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily placed reliance upon the averments made by the petitioner in CM No.9078 of 2004. It has been averred in the aforesaid application that certain left over houses had become available at Faridabad and,therefore, the petitioner was entitled to allotment of one of the aforesaid left over houses. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that essentially the petitioner is trying to execute the appellate order Annexure P/3. This court will not act as an executing court for the appellate order. The petitioner,therefore, would be well advised to approach the appellate authority for execution of the order. 5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that essentially the petitioner is trying to execute the appellate order Annexure P/3. This court will not act as an executing court for the appellate order. The petitioner,therefore, would be well advised to approach the appellate authority for execution of the order. 5. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of and the petitioner is granted a liberty to approach the Chairman, housing board with a request to implement/execute the order dated July 6, 2004. If the Chairman Housing Board comes to a conclusion that certain houses are available for allotment and the petitioner is eligible for allotment to any one of the aforesaid houses, then the petitioner would be granted necessary relief by the Chairman. 6. A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.