Narender Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioner had applied for allotment of a residential plot of 14 Marlas in Sector 2, Bahadurgarh, through Union Bank of India, Branch Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (respondent No. 5 herein). After the draw of lots held on 25.6.2010, when the petitioner enquired from the office of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bahadurgarh, he was told that no application submitted by him was ever received by the office of the HUDA. On further enquiry from respondent No. 5 bank, he was informed that his application was forwarded to the HUDA on 7.1.2010. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to allot him a plot in Sector 2, Bahadurgarh. On August 22, 2013, the following order was passed by this Court:-

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (respondent No. 5), it has been categorically stated that the application form of the petitioner along with the requisite earnest money was sent to the HUDA, which was duly received by the HUDA, Panchkula, at registration No. 73188, flag No. 457411. On the other hand, in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4, it has been stated that the HUDA did not receive any such application, therefore, application of the petitioner for allotment of a plot by draw of lots was not considered. In these circumstances, respondent No. 5 as well as the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh (respondent No. 4) are directed to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing, along with the entire record pertaining to this case. Since all the applications submitted through bank are to be sent to the Controlling Branch, Head Office of the HUDA, therefore, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No. 2) is also directed to depute the Officer-in-charge of the Controlling Branch of the Head Office, which had received all the applications for allotment of plot submitted through bank, to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing along with the entire record pertaining to this case.

Adjourned to September 04, 2013.

Today, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh, has filed his affidavit in court, and he has brought the entire record of the case. In the affidavit, it has been stated that in the computerised data sent by respondent No. 5 bank, against the registration number of the application of the petitioner, his name was wrongly mentioned as "Narender Kumar". It has been further stated that application against the said registration number was put in the draw of lots and the said applicant remained unsuccessful, and the earnest money paid with the application was remitted back to the Bank. In this regard, the entire record has been shown to this court.

When learned counsel for respondent No. 5 bank was asked to explain as to how application of the petitioner was sent in the name of "Narender Kumar", whereas in the original application, copy of which has been annexed with the affidavit, filed today, as Annexure-II, his name was mentioned as "Narender Kumar", it has been categorically admitted by the learned counsel that the said mistake was committed by the bank. In our opinion, because of this mistake, the petitioner has to approach this Court, the HUDA has to file written statement, and officials of the HUDA have to come to this Court. If the application of the petitioner would have been sent by mentioning his right name in the computerised data, then all these things could have been avoided. Not only this, a lot of time of this Court has been consumed because of the mistake committed by respondent No. 5 bank.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the instant petition is dismissed. However, costs to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- are imposed upon respondent No. 5 bank to be paid to the petitioner, who has been compelled to approach this court. The Manager of respondent No. 5 bank, who is present in court, states that the amount of costs will be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month.