Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Urban Development Authority ... vs Vinod Kumar And Another on 25 March, 2010
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
CM No. 1107 of 2010 and 1
LPA No. 399 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM No. 1107 of 2010 and
LPA No. 399 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 25, 2010
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ...Appellants
Versus
Vinod Kumar and another ..Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate,
for the appellants.
GURDEV SINGH, J.
This appeal by the appellant-Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUDA') and another is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2009, vide which writ petition filed by Vinod Kumar-respondent No.1 was disposed of with the direction to the HUDA to consider his case for allotment of a plot under the oustees category in any other sector also and that he should be considered as and when the allotment is to be made in favour of the oustee category and advertisement is issued to that effect.
The respondent No.1-Vinod Kumar filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus declaring the action of the HUDA in not considering him for allotment of a plot as oustee and the stand taken by them in the reply dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure P/10) as illegal, arbitrary, CM No. 1107 of 2010 and 2 LPA No. 399 of 2010 (O&M) malafide and ultra-vires the policies of the HUDA issued from time to time and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further directing them to allot a plot to him from oustee quota forthwith. According to him, he purchased 1 kanal 4 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 161//10/2 (3-16) in village Saketri, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, vide sale deed dated 2.5.1983 (Annexure P/1) and his name was duly incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 (Annexure P/2). The State of Haryana- respondent No.2 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 16.3.1999 for acquiring a vast area, including the said land, for the HUDA, for carving out Sectors 2 (Part) and 6, Mansa Devi Complex (MCD) at Panchkula. Applications were invited by the HUDA by means of public notice from the general public for the allotment of residential plot in the aforesaid sectors as oustees. The petitioner submitted an application for being considered for allotment of a plot in Sector 6 under oustee category and also deposited Rs. 94,991/-. In response to that application, he received a communication dated 7.12.l2005 from the HUDA, requiring him to submit certain additional documents. The application was registered for the allotment of plot under oustee category. He submitted the requisite documents. His name was included in the list of applicants for general category for the draw of lots held on 15.12.2005, but he remained unsuccessful. As his name was not considered in oustee category, so he filed CWP No. 7193 of 2006, which was disposed of with a direction to the Estate Officer, HUDA, to take a final decision on the legal notice, served by him, within a period of four months. In response to that direction, he received reply dated 11.10.2006 in which it was impressed that his land fell in Sector 2 MCD, Panchkula, and, as such, was not entitled to a plot in CM No. 1107 of 2010 and 3 LPA No. 399 of 2010 (O&M) Sector 6 and that he could apply afresh as and when plots are floated in Sector 2. The State Government for the benefit of the displaced persons due to compulsory acquisition of their land had declared policy dated 10.9.1987 for allotment of plots to them, which was modified and a comprehensive policy was issued on 18.3.1992. That policy was further revised on 12.3.1993 and only a partial modification was done in the policy of 1992. As per that Policy, the oustees were to be given plots as per their eligibility. On 27.2.2000, there was a partial modification in the existing policy pertaining to the oustees and as per that policy the claims of the oustees were to be invited and they were to have prior right for allotment of plots. Only rest of the plots were to be made available for allotment, after adjusting the claim of the oustees. There was further clarification, vide memo dated 8.12.2003, according to which, if the plot under oustees quota cannot be offered to oustees in the same sector (developed as non- residential), then they were to be offered only residential plot in the next residential sector, which may be floated and developed by the HUDA. As per that policy, he was eligible for the allotment of the plot. The act of the respondents in not allotting a plot to him, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Reply was filed to the writ petition by the Estate Officer, HUDA, in which, the factual position was admitted, being matter of record. However, it was pleaded therein that the application of the petitioner for allotment of the plot under oustee quota was duly considered in the meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the chairmanship of Administrator, HUDA, but his case was rejected on the ground that his land falls in sector 2 and was not entitled to apply in Sector 6 and, as such, was eligible for plot in that sector. CM No. 1107 of 2010 and 4 LPA No. 399 of 2010 (O&M) However, he was given liberty to apply a fresh as and when plots are floated by the HUDA in Sector 2. The earnest money deposited by him was refunded back. No vested right accrued to the petitioner to get a plot in other sector. No plot could have been allotted in Sector 2 without issuing any advertisement as per direction issued in CWP No. 5606 of 2007 titled Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana and others After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the aforesaid observations.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the policy for allotment of plots to the oustees was amended and as per that amended policy (Annexure P/17), no plot can be offered to the petitioner in Sector 6, which is being developed as commercial sector. The petitioner can only be allotted a residential plot under oustee category. The HUDA had the right to scrap any policy at any time. She also submitted that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of a plot in another sector is liable to be set aside as he can only be given a plot in Sector 2 and regarding acquiring of the land in that sector, litigation is going on and it is not possible to allot a plot to him in that sector.
These arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of merits. The original policy framed by the HUDA was amended vide Annexure P/14 to the writ petition itself and the relevant portion thereof was re-produced in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As per that amended policy, if the plot under oustee quota could not be offered to the oustees in the same sector then they were to be offered CM No. 1107 of 2010 and 5 LPA No. 399 of 2010 (O&M) residential/commercial plots in the next residential sector of the urban estate to be floated by the HUDA. A clarification was provided by Annexure P/17, vide which the word "commercial" was omitted wherever it figured in the Circular dated 28.8.2009 and it was also made clear that only residential plots shall be offered to the oustees in the next residential sector.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he be allotted commercial plot nor there is any such direction by the learned Single Judge. It is also not the direction of the learned Single Judge that the case of the petitioner be considered for allotment of plot in a particular sector. As per the policy of the HUDA itself, he is entitled to the allotment of a residential plot in the next residential sector if such residential plot cannot be offered to him in the sector in which he was entitled to by virtue of acquisition of his land. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, as such, there is no ground for upsetting the same.
Apart from the above, it may be observed that this appeal was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. There is delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay, does not constitute sufficient cause. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation also.
The application as well as the appeal are dismissed accordingly.
(GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE (MEHTAB S. GILL) JUDGE March 25,2 010 prem