Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh And Anr. vs The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban ... on 29 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR159
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
ORDER Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Manimajra, vide letter dated 15.4.1991 allotted a six marla residential plot to Surinder Singh, petitioner No. 1 out of discretionary quota. Similarly, a 14 marla residential plot was allotted to Vinod Kumar, petitioner No. 2 out of discretionary quota. These plots were allotted to the petitioners subject to the condition that they had no other plot/ house in Urban Estate Rohtak either in their own name or in the name of their spouses or any dependent family members and they had not been allotted any plot of land out of Haryana Government discretionary quota at any time in any Urban Estate of Haryana. Petitioners 1 and 2 submitted affidavits to that effect and also deposited a sum of Rs. 8202.50 and Rs. 20,254/ vide receipts No. 098165 dated 18.4.1991 and 098164 dated 18.4.1991 respectively but to petitioners' great dismay, the respondents had cancelled the allotment of plots vide orders dated 10.4.1992, copies of which are Annexures P-3 and P-4 to the writ petition, without assigning any reason and the amount deposited by them was ordered to be refunded to them. Hence, this petition.
2. The challenge to the orders of cancellation of plots is that the Chief Administrator, H. U. D. A. Manimajra had cancelled the allotment of plots without following the mandatory provisions of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 3.4.1992 directed all the Estate Officers, Haryana Urban Development Authority, not to allot plots to those persons who were given offer of allotment of plot out of discretionary quota during the period from April, 1991 to June, 1991 and he has passed the orders without application of his mind and affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As such, the allotment of plots cannot be cancelled.
4. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the plea is that after the issuance of letter dated 3.4.1992 the petitioners were not issued letters of allotment in view of the fact that the matter, regarding validity of allotment of plots out of discretionary quota from April, 1991 to June, 1991 was kept for consideration. The State Government has taken a decision not to issue final allotment letters.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
6. The allotment of plots has been cancelled in an arbitrary manner by a blanket order. The Haryana Urban Development Authority is a statutory body. It had. not applied its mind before issuing letter of cancellation. The principle of audi alteram partem has been violated as no show cause notice and opportunity to explain was given to the petitioners before cancellation. This view is based on S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1988 P.LJ. 123.
7. It is well settled principle of law that if any order detriment to the right of a person is passed, he is to be given show cause notice or opportunity of hearing.
8. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed and the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 are quashed.