Authority: High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Mari Muttu vs Respondent H.U.D.A. (Haryana Urban Development Authority).
  • The petition sought determination of the petitioner’s claim; petitioner argued the claim is covered by earlier judgments Randhir Singh vs H.U.D.A. (25 Sep 1996) and Ramesh Chand vs State of Haryana (16 Jan 1997), and that a legal notice (Annexure P3) remained undecided.
  • State counsel raised no objection to the limited prayer.
  • The Court, without commenting on merits, disposed of the petition and directed the respondent to decide the claim expeditiously, in accordance with law and the referenced judgments.
  • The respondent must provide notice and hearing to the petitioner; if the petitioner is found entitled, the benefit must be granted forthwith. If any order is adverse, it must contain reasons, and the petitioner may seek further legal redress.

Final Outcome

  • Petition dismissed; H.U.D.A. ordered to determine the petitioner’s claim promptly, following due process, with provision for appeal against adverse orders.

Topics: Legal Order, Urban Development Claim