Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Urban Development Authority ... vs Layak Ram Singh on 15 November, 2011
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No.2070 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.2070 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.11.2011
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another
..... Appellants
Versus
Layak Ram Singh
..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate,
for the caveator-respondent.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against that part of the judgment which deal with the claim made by the writ petitioner-respondent in CWP No.8594 of 2010 which is referable to the instant appeal. In the aforesaid part of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has pointed out that on the rejection of the claim made by the petitioner-respondent for allotment of plot under the oustees quota, a number of persons had earlier filed a bunch of petitions before this Court. The writ petitioner-respondent had also filed CWP No.8135 of 2006 which was disposed of on 25.05.2006 by a Division Bench with the direction to the Estate Officer, Sonepat to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. It was also directed that if the writ petitioner-respondent was required to deposit any earnest money, it was required to be communicated to him and thereafter the claim was to be considered in accordance with law. The LPA No.2070 of 2011 (O&M) -2- operative part of the order dated 25.05.2006 reads thus:-
"However, from the perusal of the averments made in the present petition, we find that at no point of time the price of the plot had been fixed. In these circumstances, the petitioner obviously could not be expected to deposit any earnest money.
Consequently, we dispose of the present petition and it is directed that the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonipat, shall reconsider the claim of the petitioners. If the petitioners are required to deposit any earnest money, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners and thereafter, their claim shall be considered in accordance with law.
The necessary process in this regard shall be completed by the Estate Officer within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received."
2. It was conceded before the learned Single Judge as well as before us that no intimation with regard to 10% of the price required to be deposited by the writ petitioner-respondent, was ever intimated to him as directed by the Division Bench on 25.05.2006. The aforesaid directions have admittedly attained finality. In the order 24.08.2009 (P-6) the appellant-HUDA has once again rejected the claim of the petitioner- respondent on the same ground which was taken earlier in the order quashed by the Division Bench earlier resulting in passing of directions on 25.05.2006.
3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the resurrected stand taken by the appellant. An attempt was made to place reliance on the policy instructions dated 12.03.1993 with regard to depositing 10% of the earnest money. The learned Single Judge found that even that procedure has not been followed and violation of Para (vi) of the policy instructions dated LPA No.2070 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 12.03.1993 has been noticed.
4. We are further of the view that one mandamus has been issued by the Division Bench on 25.05.2006 which has admittedly attained finality, the same cannot be nullified by either issuing another mandamus or by the appellant by ignoring or resurrecting the same ground in the order dated 24.08.2009 (P-6) which was the basis of the order earlier quoted. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a Constitution Bench judgment of a Supreme Court titled as Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1967 SC 1.
5. Mr. Batra, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the writ petitioner-respondent is merely a co-sharer and in the absence of consent given by the other co-sharers, he alone cannot make a claim for allotment of plot under the oustees quota. Be that as it may, the aforesaid plea firstly was not raised before the learned Single Judge nor it was in the tenor of the earlier order which was impugned in CWP No.8135 of 2006. The aforesaid issue has also not been raised before the learned Single Judge. In any case, once the writ petitioner-respondent has been given the opportunity of depositing 10% as per the directions issued on 25.05.2006 or in the present writ petition (CWP No.8594 of 2010) then the appellants may require the writ petitioner-respondent to fulfil all the other requirements of the policy.
6. Mr. Batra has also raised an other interesting argument that advertisement was issued in the year 2000 (P-1) and the price of the plot was actually mentioned for the oustees also. Even that argument would lack any content because thereafter CWP No.8135 of 2006 was filed and LPA No.2070 of 2011 (O&M) -4- directions have been issued by a Division Bench on 25.05.2006. The issue concerning advertisement of 2000 cannot now be pressed. The order dated 25.05.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court has attained finality. There was no bar for the appellants to seek review of the aforesaid order after it was conveyed by the writ petitioner-respondent to the appellant - HUDA. However, no effort in that regard was made and the order was permitted to attain finality.
7. The appeal is wholly without merit and is dismissed in limine.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 15.11.2011 JUDGE manju