Amar Kaur vs State of Haryana

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Estate Officer, Panchkula dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure P-15) in terms of the direction of this Court dated 3.9.2013 (Annexure P-13) to consider the matter afresh regarding cancellation of offer of allotment of an Industrial Plot.

Learned Estate Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners for the reason that the an offer to allot a plot was made to the petitioners of an industrial plot out of discretionary quota of the State Government. Such quota was withdrawn on 10.4.1989. Therefore, the cancellation of offer of allotment is legal and justified.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present petition. The petitioners were offered industrial plot measuring 2 kanals on 30.3.1983 on the recommendation of the Minister subject to approval of the project report by the Industrial Department. In pursuance of such offer, no letter of allotment was issued. Learned Estate Officer has found that offer of allotment could not be made merely on the recommendation of the Minister without any rule or policy. It is also found that the discretionary quota in respect of allotment of industrial plot does not exist at any point of time and the Minister was not competent to recommendation as there was no provision for allotment of industrial plot. Still further, the State Government has circulated on 10.4.1989 that applications received through former minister for allotment should outrightly be rejected and refund be made.

A Full Bench of this court in Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, found that the allotment of residential plots by way of discretionary quota is illegal but allotments made in respect of certain categories were upheld. The allotment under the category to which the petitioner belongs was not within the exceptions carved out by the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal''s case (supra).

In appeal against the judgment of this Court in Anil Sabharwal''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana and Others, upheld that the allotment of plots by way of discretion of the State Government and/or the Chief Minister are not tenable but made it effective from 23.4.1996. The Court observed as under:-

"8. These appeals, therefore, stand allowed to the extent indicated above and declaring that the judgment of the High Court in Anil Sabharwal''s case (supra), shall be effective from 23-4-1996. In the event in any of the cases any allotment has been cancelled, the same shall be brought in conformity with the order made by us whether those allottees are parties in these proceedings or not. The declaration made by us will have a general application. It is also made clear that allotment orders made prior to 23-4-1996 can be cancelled if they are not made in conformity with the decision in Shri S.R. Dass, Headmaster, Lawrence School, Sanawar (Shimla Hills) Vs. State of Haryana and Others after following due procedure".

In view of the discussion above, we find that no right accrues to the petitioner as he claims allotment of an Industrial Plot in exercise of the discretionary quota which has not been upheld in the judgments referred to above. The offer of an industrial plot does not satisfy the requirement of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Even no letter of allotment was ever issued to the petitioners.

In view thereof, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Estate Officer on 8.1.2014.

Dismissed.