Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Singh Malhan vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 18 September, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 14232 of 2004
Date of Decision:-18.09.2013
Virender Singh Malhan
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others
.....Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN.
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate
for respondent No. 4.
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate
for respondent No. 5.
****
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral)
The petitioner is working in Haryana Government as a Lecturer in Government College, Panchkula. In the year 2003, HUDA made advertisement for allotment of residential plot in different Sectors of Panchkula. In the said advertisement in Sector-4, Mansa Devi Complex, 10 plots of 14 marlas and 9 plots of 6 marlas were advertised for allotment in the said advertisement. The applications of the oustees were also invited. It was also stated that as per HUDA policy 10% plots of the General category were to be reserved for Haryana Government employess, including the employes of its Boards, Corporations, employees of Municipal Saini Reema 2013.09.25 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 14232 of 2004 -2- Corporation/Committee, Improvement Trust and Cooperative banks etc. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for 14 marlas plots being a Govt. employee with requisite earnest money. Against the said advertisement several applications were received by HUDA from the oustees and out of 10 plots of 14 marlas, 8 were allotted to the oustees, who were having the prior claim. Since, the remaining plots were less than 10, therefore, no plot was reserved for the Government servant. As per the written statement, the application of the petitioner was considered against draw of lots of three plots (one plot was lateron added) in general category. One plot was lateron added but the petitioner was unsuccessful.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the draw of plots held on 23.3.2004 for allotment of residential plot of the size of 14 marlas in Sector-4, Mansa Devi Complex, on the ground that since no reservation for Government servant was made, therefore, the entire exercise was illegal.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition as undisputedly the oustees whose land has been acquired, have a prior claim for allotment as per the HUDA policy, and after the allotment of the plot to the oustees the remaining plots is to be offered to the General category. Since, the remaining plots were three, there was no possibility for making 10% reservation for Government employee. Therefore, in our opinion, the HUDA was perfectly justified in not regularising any Saini Reema 2013.09.25 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 14232 of 2004 -3- plot to Government Servant against 14 marla plots. Merely because the application of the petitioner was considered in General category, though he had applied as a Government servant, does not make the draw of plots illegal. The petitioner was given opportunity to be considered in the said draw of lots in General category, therefore, no prejudice is caused to him.
In these facts, we do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
18.09.2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
reema JUDGE
Saini Reema
2013.09.25 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh