Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Aggarwal vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 25 April, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 25, 2011
Santosh Aggarwal
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Having been successful in allotment of plot measuring 1 kanal in Sector 21, Urban Estate, Gurgaon in draw of lots held in the year 1986, the petitioner is still struggling to get one till date. Plot No.84, which came to the lot of petitioner in draw was found to be under litigation at the instance of original land owner. The respondent-HUDA was not in a position to offer possession of the said plot and kept on assuring the petitioner that possession will be given to him, once the plot became free from litigation. After ten CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
years, HUDA could not hand over the possession of the plot and so, it offered an alternative plot to the petitioner on 10.4.1996 bearing No.75 in Sector 9, Gurgaon. The petitioner, however, did not accept the same as it was lying in under developed pocket. The offer was also made at a very higher rate, which was not acceptable to the petitioner.
This necessitated the petitioner to approach the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, with complaint, which was accepted on 24.9.1996. Finding is that the respondent-HUDA was aware of the pending litigation of the allotted plot to the petitioner but still had offered the same for allotment and so the possession could not be delivered. The alternative plot was also found to be having a very less potential value and, thus, the Consumer Forum directed HUDA to allot alternative plot either in the same Sector or in the adjoining Sectors towards Delhi like Sectors 23, 22 Part 40, 31 and 46.
Respondent-HUDA unsuccessfully challenged this order before National Commission. The revision petition filed by HUDA was dismissed on 27.8.2002. Still, HUDA did not choose to allot any alternative plot to the petitioner in the Sectors as directed by the District Forum.
At some point of time, HUDA came out with alternative proposal to allot Plot No.1386 in Sector 23-23A, Gurgaon. This plot was also under dispute. As per the record of respondent-HUDA, no allotment letter was, thus, issued. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation with a request for allotment of plot in either of Sectors 27, 28, 43, 45 and 46 Urban Estate, Gurgaon. When nothing was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:
done, the petitioner was forced to file an execution petition, pointing out that about 21 plots in Sectors 28 and 43, Gurgaon were lying vacant. In response, respondent-HUDA took up a plea that Plot No.1386-P, Sector 23-A, Gurgaon, had been allotted to the petitioner and, thus, the order of District Forum stood complied with. The petitioner has placed on record the material to show that even proposed allotment of this plot could not be made as the same was found as a part of slum and possession thereof could not be given to the petitioner. During the pendency of execution application, respondent-HUDA had passed the impugned memo on 19.11.2009, allotting plot No.1386-P in Sector 23-23A, Gurgaon, which could not be given effect to in the year 1997. The petitioner has, thus, filed the present petition before this Court.
In the written statement filed by respondent-HUDA, it is reiterated that alternative Plot No.1386P, Sector 23/23A, Gurgaon, has been offered in lieu of the disputed plot on 31.3.1997 but due to change of demarcation plan, the allotment letter of said plot could not be issued to the petitioner. However, the allotment letter of alternative Plot No.1386P, Sector 23/23-A, Gurgaon, has now been issued in the name of the petitioner on 19.11.2009 on the same rate as on the original Plot No.84, Sector 21, Gurgaon was earmarked.
Considering the rival submissions made and after noticing the contention that Plot No.682 and 661-A in Sector 42, Gurgaon were lying vacant, the counsel for respondent-HUDA was given time to have instructions if one of these plots could be considered for allotment to the petitioner. In response, counsel for respondent-
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:
HUDA, on instructions, stated that the said plots can not be allotted to the petitioner. However, no reasons are disclosed in this regard.
I find the attitude of respondent-HUDA to be totally unfair, arbitrary and unjust. Look at the plight of the petitioner, who was successful in the draw of lots in the year 1986 and is still looking for allotment and for this purpose has been before one Forum or the other. At the first instance, respondent-HUDA was totally unjustified in putting a plot for draw which was under litigation. The petitioner struggled for getting possession of this plot for 10 years without result. When an alternative plot was offered to him, it was found in an under develop pocket. Such has been generally the approach of HUDA. Is this the way to treat a consumer? The petitioner justifiably approached the Consumer Forum and was successful. Yet his plight was to struggle and get allotment for all these years till now. The order passed by the Consumer Forum was taken in challenge upto National Commission and, thus, the respondent-HUDA could stall the allotment till the year 2002.
Despite being unsuccessful before every Forum, the respondents have failed to show reasonableness on their part. They continued to insist on being unfair, which attitude deserves to be deprecated. The petitioner was offered a plot, which was still in dispute and for that reason neither he could be issued an allotment letter nor the possession thereof. This is the plot, which HUDA claims to have allotted to the petitioner in the year 1997 and is numbered 1386P, Sector 23/23A, Gurgaon. The petitioner still was reasonable to make representation and then file an execution application to see CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:
that the order passed by the Consumer Forum was executed. The respondent-HUDA continued to be adamant and have made no effort to change the attitude. HUDA allotted alternative plot in the year 1997 despite being fully aware of the fact that the possession of this plot could not be given because there was absolutely no development in this belt. It may be of importance to make reference here to the report of the Kanungo given on 11.12.1997 in this regard, which is as under:-
"The possession of the plot cannot be given because there is absolutely no development of any type such as road, water, sewer etc. and it adjoins Vill.Pond." Not only that, the authorities at HUDA noted as under in this regard:-
"Again Plot No.1386, Sector 23-23A, Gurgaon was offered vide this office letter No.2585 dated 31.3.1997 in lieu of Plot No.84/21, Gurgaon. The said offer was accepted by the party vide his letter dated 7.4.1997, but the allotment letter was not issued as demarcation plan of the pocket where this plot is situated was not finalized...." What could the person like the petitioner have done except to again approach legal Forum? That is what the petitioner did and he, thus, has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
The respondent-HUDA was still given chance to make amends and show some sense of reasonableness by allotting a plot to the petitioner, which was still lying vacant in Sector 42. But one can not expect authorities like HUDA to show a fair or reasonable CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 6 }:
approach. HUDA seems to have arrogated itself with unbridled powers, which it has been blatantly misusing. Flat `no' was the answer, when asked to see the feasibility of allotting available plot. So, the parties have been heard. I see no justification at all on the part of respondent-HUDA to behave in a manner, it has done. The respondent-HUDA has been totally unfair, unreasonable and unjust with the petitioner and as a result thereof, it has deprived the petitioner of his right to enjoy the fruits of his successful allotment of plot made in his favour in the year 1986. The petitioner, thus, has been deprived of his valuable right for a period of over two decades. Even now they have refused to see any reason to be reasonable. In fact, this is not one isolated case, where the approach on the part of HUDA has been of this kind. In a recent decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.14072 of 2010 (Air Commodore B.S.Gthwala (Retired) Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 17.3.2011, similar unfair and arbitrary approach on the part of HUDA was noticed and directions were issued for allotment of a plot in favour of the petitioner therein. The relevant observations may need reproduction here to highlight the unfair and unreasonable attitude on the part of HUDA, which are as under:-
"In my view, respondent-HUDA was given chance to make mends. HUDA still has declined to avail opportunity to act in a fair manner. The facts as noticed above would in itself be enough to show how unfairly the petitioner was treated. If the initial allotment, which was done in favour of the petitioner in year 1990 or 1998 had materialized, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 7 }:
the petitioner would have been able to construct his house with hardly any expense. The cost of construction has risen phenomenally as compared to 1990. Asking the petitioner to go for same plot, which was allotted in the year 1990, may require the HUDA to be put to some terms. This, accordingly, was put to counsel for respondent-HUDA that if they would be prepared to bear the difference of construction cost. The petitioner has been made to face this situation, only on account of unfair action of HUDA. Such a suggestion would have met only with one obvious answer i.e. 'no' and that indeed is the answer by Mr. Walia. If that be so, why the respondent- HUDA cannot act in a fair manner. I am not able to understand why the recommendation made by the Administrator, HUDA, could not be accepted." All the above noted considerations would equally apply in the present case. If the initial allotment done in favour of the petitioner in the year 1986 had materalised, he would have been able to construct his house with hardly any expenses. This is also a case where the respondent-HUDA had allowed the unfairness to perpetuate. As already noticed, such a situation can not be accepted. The writ, being meritorious, deserves to be allowed. Direction is hereby issued to respondent-HUDA to allot Plot No.682 in Sector 42, Gurgaon as an alternative to original plot allotted to the petitioner. This allotment would be on the same rate on which the original Plot No.84, Sector 21, Gurgaon, was earmarked and allotted to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2010 :{ 8 }:
petitioner. Let the allotment of the plot be made in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner may complete the formalities for allotment of plot in his favour, as he may be asked by respondent-HUDA.
In view of the unfair and adamant attitude adopted by respondent-HUDA, the writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs, which are assessed at `25,000/-.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
April 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE