Gobind Ram Garg vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—The Petitioner had applied for 10 marlas plot in Sector 23, 23-A (Part-II), Gurgaon. The Petitioner was allotted plot No. 2160 through letter dated 08.03.1988/29.02.1988. Copy of the allotment letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. Soon thereafter, the Petitioner was informed that plot No. 2160 allotted to the Petitioner was subject matter of litigation and was held up due to stay granted by the Court. The Petitioner was also informed that allotment letter will be sent after vacation of stay. The total value of the plot at that time was Rs. 52,080/- at the rate of Rs. 236.73 paise per sq. meter. The Petitioner made a request for issuance of allotment letter by filling representations. On 25.10.1989, the Petitioner received a communication that plot No. 1910, Sector 23, 23-A was allotted to him in lieu of plot No. 2160 on account of draw held on 21.08.1989. He was informed that the allotment letter for the same would be issued after complying with the necessary formalities. Still the Respondents failed to issue allotment letter to the Petitioner. Process of filing representations again commenced and the Petitioner filed numerous representations on 06.01.1990, 06.12.1990, 29.01.1991, 14.02.1991 and 03.04.1991. Copies of all these representations have been annexed with the petition. Allotment letter still was not issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner even paid a personal visit to the office of HUDA but every time only to return with assurance that the needful be done very shortly.

On 04.06.1991, the Petitioner received a copy of letter addressed to Respondent No. 1 to consider the application for allotment of plot in Sector 23, 23-A or in Sector 31 and 32-A. The Petitioner found that plot No. 1910, which was earlier allotted to him, was in possession of HUDA and was free from all kinds of litigation. The Petitioner, thus, claimed that he was entitled to get possession of the same and was willing to deposit the balance amount of instalment at the rate of Rs. 236.73 paise per sq. meter. The Petitioner made a representation in this regard but still nothing happened.

The ultimate grievance of the Petitioner is that he did not receive any alternative offer in view of plot No. 1910 allotted to him, which was free from all kinds of litigation. The Petitioner, accordingly, made a claim for allotment of this plot to him at the original rate as published at the time of filing the application. As per the Petitioner, the action of HUDA in not allotting the allotment letter to the Petitioner is illegal, void, harsh, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. The Petitioner also filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed on the ground that Forum had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue mandamus to the Respondents to give possession of plot No. 1910 already allotted to him and requiring the Petitioner to deposit a specified sum of balance of price on completion of other formalities.

Reply on behalf of the Respondent/HUDA has been filed. It is conceded that the Petitioner had applied for allotment of 10 marlas plot in Sector 23, 23-A, Gurgaon. It is further stated that no allotment letter was issued to the Petitioner rather it is pointed out that plot No. 1910, Sectors 23, 23-A was earmarked in the name of the Petitioner in the draw of lots held on 21.08.1989. It is urged that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the allotment letter, as per the Hon''ble Supreme Court order. The benefit of allotment of plot in the original sector has to be given and is confirmed to only those, who had initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the High Court to challenge the non-allotment of plots. It is then pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that in case of those who have not chosen to question the non-allotment of plots to them, they will not be allowed to do so in future. Further directions were that the HUDA will receive 50% more price in addition to the original price. As per the HUDA, the Petitioner neither approached this Court or the Supreme Court and, thus, is not entitled to get even the aforesaid relief granted to the original allottees. Accordingly, the claim of the Petitioner is contested on this ground.

In replication filed, the Petitioner has contested the stand taken by the Respondent-HUDA. It is pointed out that the person who was denied allotment and yet did not follow any remedy would be in a different category and their cases would be distinguishable from the cases from those persons, who were given a promise of allotment. The Petitioner had never refused allotment and so he had no cause to approach either this Court or to the Supreme Court. The amount of 50% over and above the value mutually settled was agreed by the Petitioner though this did not statedly apply to Sector 23. Still the Petitioner expressed his willingness to accept the same. Indeed, this was so recorded by the Court, while admitting the writ petition and the Court had directed that plot No. 1910 in Sector 23, 23-A, Urban Estate, Gurgaon will not be allotted to any person till further orders.

When the case came up for hearing on 15.02.2011, the counsel for the Respondent/HUDA pointed out that the Petitioner had made a very fair offer to the effect that he was ready to pay 50% more price of the plot with interest. This aspect was communicated to Respondent/HUDA but he has not received any response. The case was adjourned to enable the counsel for the Respondent to obtain instructions in this regard. Counsel appearing for HUDA has now received communication that the file in this regard has been sent to Chief Administrator, HUDA for passing the appropriate order, who is competent in this regard. Prayer for adjournment is, accordingly, made. I am not inclined to allow any further time as the writ petition is pending since 1993 and has now come up for hearing. I would, therefore, proceed to decide the writ petition on the basis of pleadings.

From the facts as noticed above, it is clear that the Petitioner was allotted plot No. 2160 through Annexure P-3. The said plot was under litigation and the allotment letter was to be issued to the Petitioner on vacation of stay. In lieu of this plot, the draw of lots was held for allotment of alternative plot to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was successful in the draw of lots for allotment of plot No. 1910 Sector 23, 23A. It is conceded that this plot was then to be allotted to the Petitioner as an alternative to the originally allotted plot. For undisclosed reason, allotment still could not be made in the favour of the Petitioner. No reasons are forthcoming in this regard. The submission that the Petitioner did not approach this Court or the Supreme Court and, hence, was not entitled to either consideration for allotment or for allotment, would be misconceived. It is not a case where the Petitioner has not been allotted plot and was striving to get one. This was a case where the Petitioner had been allotted a plot and subsequently another plot was allotted to him in lieu of that.

The Petitioner has, thus, made out a case for allotment of plot No. 1910, Sector 23, 23-A, which was concededly earmarked for him after the draw of lots. Since the offer made by the Petitioner is under consideration, the writ deserves to be allowed but subject to the condition that the Petitioner would pay 50% more price than the original price as fixed alongwith the interest. The allotment letter be issued to the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The allotment of course would be on usual conditions as applicable indicating the price of plot on the basis of above observations.