Balwan Singh vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of respondents in cancelling the allotment of Plot No. 120, Sector 5, Hisaro.

Respondents invited applications from the Defence and Para Military Forces Personnel for allotment of residential plots in Defence Sector 5, Hisar in the Month of September 2008. Petitioner is an Honorary Commissioned Officer from the Indian Navy, who applied for plot measuring 14 marlas. Petitioner was informed vide the letter dated 30.6.2009 by respondent No. 3 that the Plot No. 120, Defence Sector 5 Hisar has been allotted to him and was called upon to produce the certificate of eligibility and domicile. In response to the said communication, petitioner wrote a letter (Annexure R-1) dated 24.11.2009, submitting that he is holding the Honorary Rank and is eligible for 14 marla plot. Petitioner also mentioned to send the amount to State Bank of India. As a matter of fact, petitioner as an Honorary Commissioned Officer was entitled to 10 marla plot in terms of the eligibility conditions advertised but such eligibility conditions have subsequently been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Bhatia vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, CWP No. 10272 of 2006 decided on 3.8.2006 and reiterated recently in CWP No. 18393 of 2008, The Hisar Ex. Naval Personnel Welfare Society, 88, Defence Colony, Hisar vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 1.2.2012.

The argument of the petitioner is that he has sought the verification of the rank but there was no request for surrender of the plot and therefore, the amount deposited could not have been refunded to the petitioner. It is also argued that as the eligibility conditions, as advertised, are not legal and therefore, cannot be taken into consideration for not allotting the plot to the petitioner. The classification in respect of eligibility on the basis of rank hold by an applicant is unjustified. Therefore even the cancellation of plot for the reason that the petitioner was not eligible for the 14 marla plot is unjustified.

We find that the request of the petitioner for verification cannot be treated as a request for refund of the amount. In terms of the applications submitted and the decisions of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to 14 marla plot. Therefore, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to issue a letter of allotment in respect of Plot No. 120, Defence Sector 5, Hisar to the petitioner within one month.