SURINDER PAL SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/33652/2019

Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 20-Nov-2019

CNR: PHHC011398562019

Filing Number

CWP/74294/2019

Filing Date

16-Nov-2019

Registration No

CWP/33652/2019

Registration Date

18-Nov-2019

Judge

Mr. Justice Vikas Suri , Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal

Coram

Mr. Justice Vikas Suri , Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal

Bench Type

Double

Category

8.5 - HUID PUNJAB(HOUSING URBAN INDL. DEVELOPMENT) ( 406 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURINDER PAL SINGH

    Adv. TEJINDERBIR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  2. 2.ESTATE OFFICER GMADA

  3. 3.ESTATE OFFICER OF PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vikas Suri,mr. Justice Suvir SehgalView PDF

    The court allowed the writ petition and quashed non-construction fee demand notices dated 28.12.2012 and 10.12.2018 against the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalized for non-construction when the respondents prevented him from raising construction by keeping his building plan pending for years without decision. The court directed respondents to decide the petitioner's building plan application within four months and clarified that non-construction fees cannot be levied during the pendency of plan sanction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Nov-2019

    Other

  4. 16-Nov-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/33652/2019

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed non-construction fee demand notices dated 28.12.2012 and 10.12.2018 against the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalized for non-construction when the respondents prevented him from raising construction by keeping his building plan pending for years without decision. The court directed respondents to decide the petitioner's building plan application within four months and clarified that non-construction fees cannot be levied during the pendency of plan sanction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case