Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalveer Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 12 February, 2018
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Anupinder Singh Grewal
CWP-11269-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11269-2017
Date of Decision: 15.2.2018
Dalveer Singh
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, Advocate for the respondent-HUDA.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the instructions dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7) and the proceedings dated 4.10.2016 (Annexure P-5) imposing certain new conditions and to quash the advertisement, Annexure P-8, offering allotment of residential plots to the oustees at exhorbitantly high rates. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot plot to the petitioner as per his entitlement and in view of the policies dated 18.3.1992 and 12.3.1993 (Annexure P-1 Colly).
2. The father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Ram Phal was a co- sharer in the land situated at Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak as per the jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana in the year 1995 for the development of residential sector Nos. 2 and 9/9-A, Bahadurgarh. As per the policies dated 18.3.19892/12.3.1993 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:08:28 ::: CWP-11269-2017 -2- (Annexure P-1), the father of the petitioner was entitled to a plot measuring 500 square yards. Said Shri Ram Phal expired in the year 2001 leaving behind the legal heirs including the petitioner. In the year 2006, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) invited applications for the allotment of residential plots in Sectors 2 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh from the General Public as well as from the oustees. In response thereto, the petitioner applied for the plot along with earnest money. The HUDA did not consider the claim of the petitioner and his application was kept in the general draw and was declared as unsuccessful in the draw of lots. A number of oustees filed various writ petitions including CWP-10941-2010 and this Court vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the HUDA to settle the claim of the oustees including the petitioners therein. Against the order, Annexure P-2, the HUDA filed SLP which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.11.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure P-3) before respondent No.3 for the allotment of a 500 square yard plot, but to no effect. The HUDA vide instructions dated 4.12.2015 and proceedings dated 4.10.2016 (Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively) only earmarked/reserved 44 plots out of 400 plots in Sectors 9/9-A, Bahadurgarh. Through the information dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure P-6) received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the details of the allotted and vacant plots have been supplied. In pursuance to the order, Annexure P-2, the respondents had issued the instructions dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7). The HUDA vide advertisements (Annexure P-8 Colly) invited the applications for the allotment of plots to the general public and the oustees. However, till date no plot has been allotted to the petitioner 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:08:30 ::: CWP-11269-2017 -3- under the oustees category. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to a plot under the oustees category but no plot has been allotted to him. He, however, prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
February 15, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
gbs JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:08:30 :::