DAI TARI JATI Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties and perused the writ records.

(2.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of connected Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19831, 19909, 19914, 19915, 19916 of 2005, 9910, 15180, 15732, 15964, 16033, 16173, 20494 of 2006, 1375, 1511 1651, 2089, 2181, 2462, 2823, 2915, 3039, 3506, 4204, 4652, 4836, 6764, 10380, 10679, 13098, 16095, 16100, 16261, 16467, 16574, 17127, and 17149 of 2007, as this bunch of writ petitions involves common questions of law with somewhat similar facts which need not be detailed for disposal of these cases in view of consensus between parties on the stand taken by learned Advocate General, Haryana, Shri H.S. Hooda.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Hooda, aforesaid amendment in Rule 49 has also been reproduced in reply on behalf of the State, to Civil Writ Petition No. 16100 of 2007 (Om Properties and others v. State of Haryana and others), which reads as under :-