Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dev Raj Sharma vs Himachal Pradesh Urban Development ... on 25 May, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 7142 of 2010
Decided on: 25.05.2016.
.
Dev Raj Sharma
....Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority & Anr.
of
... Respondents.
................................................................................................
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
Yes.
For the petitioner. : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent No.1. : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent No.2. : Mr. Satyen Viadya, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J (Oral).
The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"1. To issue writ of certiorari to quash the decision dated 7.8.2010 taken by respondent No.1, whereby vacant patch has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.2 and with the direction to cancel all the proceedings taken in favour of respondent No.2 in view of the decision dated 7.8.2010.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:26:12 :::HCHP 2
2. To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to sanction and allot the said vacant patch/plot in favour of the petitioner"
2. The case of the petitioner is that, vide Annexure P1, .
respondent No.1-Board had decided to approve allotment of vacant patch on "as is where is basis", vide its Agenda Item No. 118(7), which is reproduced herein below:-
"Agenda Item Availability of vacant patches of land in No.118(7) various housing colonies.
of The Board approved the proposal to allot vacant patches in the colonies to the interested parties subject to the following conditions:-
1. The allotment will be made on "as is where is basis".
rt
2. If any development like retaining wall drainage and sewerage etc. is to be made it may be done by the allottee at his own cost.
3. Construction will be allowed strictly as per approved zoning of the area.
4. Such allotments will only be made as a special case in view of the site conditions and on the merit of each case with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chairman."
Accordingly, petitioner had applied for the allotment of vacant patch lying adjoining MIG House No. 256, Sector-IV at Parwanoo, which was diarized with HIMUDA on 10.1.2007.
3. Thereafter, he also submitted site plan of the said vacant patch to respondent No.1 on 22.4.2008. His grievance is that, despite the fact that he had moved an application for allotment of said vacant patch, as far back as in the year 2007, respondent No.1, vide Annexure P7, has allotted the said vacant patch to respondent No.2. It is further submitted on behalf of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:26:12 :::HCHP 3 petitioner that respondent No.2 had applied for allotment of the said patch only on 23.7.2010 and ignoring his application which had been filed as far back as in the year 2007, vide Annexure P7 dated .
7.8.2010, respondent No.1 has allotted the said patch in favour of respondent No.2. Accordingly, by way of present petition, he has prayed for quashing of the allotment so made, of the vacant patch, by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 vide decision dated of 7.8.2010, with a further prayer that respondent No.1 be directed to sanction and allot the said vacant patch in his favour.
4. rt Respondent No.1 in its reply has submitted by way of preliminary objections that earlier also petitioner had been allotted one plot i.e. MIG Plot No. 105-C in Sector-I, Parwanoo out of the discretionary quota, vide allotment letter dated 3.12.1997.
Subsequently, he transferred this plot to a third party, for which necessary permission, though was given by respondent No.1 and presently also he is again requesting to allot a piece of land lying vacant adjoining to MIG House No. 256 in Sector-4, Parwanoo and it appears that petitioner is in the habit of getting the plot allotted and thereafter selling the same to third party.
5. Besides this, respondent No.1 has also stated in para 6 of its reply, that though the application for allotment of vacant patch had been received from respondent No.2, however, the allotment is yet to be made.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:26:12 :::HCHP 46. Accordingly, as per respondent No.1, besides the fact that the petitioner has no locus to file and maintain the present petition on account of his previous conduct even otherwise the .
petition is premature as no allotment has been made to respondent No.2.
7. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Vivek Sharma, appearing for respondent No.2 has adopted the reply of filed by respondent No.1 and has argued that, in fact, the present petition is totally misconceived. He has drawn the attention of this rt Court to the contents of Annexure P7 and argued that from perusal of said document, it is apparent and evident that there is no allotment of any patch made in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. Therefore, he argued that petition was premature and deserves dismissal on this account also.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the records of the case.
9. It is apparent from the documents on record that petitioner had earlier also been allotted a plot in Parwanoo by respondent No.1 and that too under the discretionary quota. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
He has also not disputed the fact that said land has been transferred by him in favour of a third party, with the permission of HIMUDA.
Further, according to him, this is not a bar to apply for any other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:26:12 :::HCHP 5 vacant land from HIMUDA. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the present petition per se is not maintainable, as the same is premature. The prayer is to quash decision dated 7.8.2010 taken by .
respondent No.1, whereby according to the petitioner vacant patch has been allotted in favour of respondent No.2. A perusal of Annexure P7 dated 7.8.2010 demonstrates that this is a communication addressed by CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA to the of Minister for Housing-cum-Chairman, HIMUDA and further orders have been solicited on the same. This letter dated 7.8.2010 reads as under:-
rt "Subject:- Allotment of residential plot in Sector-V in Housing Colony at Parwanoo.
Placed below at flag 'A' is an application of Smt. Nirmla Devi which is addressed to Hon'ble Chairman, HP. Housing & Urban Development Authority, Shimla for allotment of a piece of land available adjoining Plot No. HIG-16 and HIG Plot No.17 in Sector-V in Housing Colony at Parwanoo.
The matter was referred to Executive Engineer, HIMUDA Division, Parwanoo for feasibility and report. The Executive Engineer has intimated that land measuring 259.30 M2 is available for allotment for residential purpose.
The Board in its meeting held on 20.-09-1997 vide item No.118 (7) approved the proposal to allot vacant patches in the colonies to the interested parties subject to the following conditions:-
1. The allotment will be made on "as is where is basis'.
2. If any development like retaining wall/drainage and sewerage etc. is to be made it may be done by the allottee at his own cost.
3. Construction will be allowed strictly as per approved zoning of the area.
4. Such allotments will only be made as a special case in view of the site conditions and on the merit of each case with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chairman.
5. The allottee will have to get the plot approved from Town & Country Planning Department at his own level.
The above is submitted for kind perusal of Hon'ble Minister for Housing- cum-Chairman, HIMUDA and further orders are solicited, please."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:26:12 :::HCHP 610. Apparently, this communication is of general nature and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that vide communication .
dated 11.8.2010, respondent No.1 has allotted any piece of land in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, in my considered view, the present petition is premature as well as misconceived, for the reason that when no vacant patch, in fact, has yet been allotted in favour of of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 as yet, there is no occasion for this Court to grant the reliefs which have been sought by the present rt petitioner by way of this petition.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being premature and misconceived at this stage, so also pending application(s), if any. No order as to cost.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 25th May, 2016.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:26:12 :::HCHP