- (1.) The petitioner has claimed a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to exclude and/or de-licence an area measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 03.05.2013 from land measuring 10.10625 acres, as such land is part of the licence No.64 of 2013 granted to respondents No.3 to 7.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that one Preet Paul (respondent No.8) along with Jeet Singh and Sheela Devi executed a sale deed on 04.03.1985 in favour of Ajit Kaur (respondent No.4) in respect of land measuring 3 Kanal 3 Marla i.e. 3/4th share of land comprising in Rect. No.45, Killa No.11/2 (4 Kanal- 4 Marla). Preet Paul filed a civil suit on 09.01.2006 challenging sale to the extent of his share for the reason that he was minor on the date of sale, therefore, the sale to the extent of his share is void. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 22.12.2012. Admittedly, an application by Ajit Kaur (respondent No.4 herein), the defendant in the suit, to set aside the ex parte decree was filed. The Civil Court has passed an order on 15.03.2013 staying the operation of the decree. It has also come on record that one of the vendee from Preet Paul has filed an appeal against the ex parte decree which is pending. The petitioner is said to have purchased land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla after the decree of the Civil Court on 03.05.2013. The agreement to sell dated 22.04.2013, the copy of which is available on record as Annexure P-4 leading to sale, specifically makes mention of the civil suit filed by Preet Paul and also mentions about the pendency of application for setting aside of the decree and also the appeal arising out of a suit filed by Preet Paul.
(3.) On 16.11.2012, the private respondents filed an application to seek a licence for development of colony in terms of Section 3 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short "the Act") including land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla purchased by the petitioner thereafter on 03.05.2013. On the basis of such application, Licence No.64 of 2013 was granted on 20.07.2013. At that stage, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court wherein this Court passed the following order on 01.05.2014:- "It appears that while multiple disputed issued regarding title, possession etc., can be resolved by an appropriate forum, however inclusion of the land in dispute in the 'licence' granted to respondent No.3 is likely to create third party rights in favour of hundreds of innocent customers. For the aforesaid limited purpose, let notice of motion be issued to the respondents for 02.09.2014. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain statu-quo with respect to title, possession, nature or creation of third party rights.";