Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 May, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 &
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05 ,2011
Charan Singh and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Punia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate,
for HUDA.
Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate,
for the applicant.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the order, rejecting their claim for allotment of plot under oustee quota. This order has been passed despite the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court determining the right of the petitioners in this regard. A mandamus was issued to re-consider the claim of the petitioners and if they were found to be eligible for allotment of a plot C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
on the basis of being oustees, then Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, was directed to issue a communication for allotment of plot to the petitioners as oustees. Necessary orders in that regard were to be passed by the Estate Officer within a period of four months from the date certified copy of that order was received. The respondents still decided to reject the claim of the petitioners and so the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
When the case came up for hearing on 16.2.2011 before this Court, it was noticed that the respondents have been unjust in denying allotment of a plot to the petitioners as oustees. Counsel for HUDA, therefore, was required to have instructions whether the plot for which the petitioners are eligible, can be allotted to them or not. Despite that respondent-HUDA continued to avoid the allotment of the plot to the petitioners. The Court on 17.2.2011 then passed a detailed order, which reads as under:-
"Land of the petitioners was acquired to carve out Sector 25, Panchkula. Having been denied their claim as oustees for allotment of plot, they have filed this writ petition. This is a second approach though the petitioners were successful in their first attempt. The manner in which the petitioners have been forced to come to the Court again would not reflect well for the authorities of HUDA. Apparently, the Estate Officer appears to have arrogated to himself the powers to sit as judge over the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
facts when noticed in brief would reveal so. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 872 of 2005 seeking mandamus directing the respondents to allot residential plots in the oustees quota in terms of policy/instructions dated 10.09.1987. This writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.07.2006. Copy of this order is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.
Clear and categoric finding was recorded by this Court that respondent/HUDA was required to make a specific request to the oustees to apply to take benefit of the oustees claim whenever advertisement was issued for new plots for oustees. Finding that there was nothing on record to show that any such information was furnished to the petitioner, this court allowed the claim of the petitioners directing HUDA to reconsider the petitioners' claim and if the petitioners were found eligible for allotment of plot on the basis of they being oustees then Estate Officer, HUDA was directed to issue a communication for allotment of plot to the petitioners as oustees requiring them to deposit money as per the requirement. The petitioners were noticed to have deposited earnest money as required in accordance with the policy. Despite such clear and categoric direction, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula has rejected the claim C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not applied for allotment of plot under oustees quota as per the policy of HUDA whereas HUDA had invited application from all categories including the oustees for allotment of plot under oustees quota for which wide publicity was made in the leading newspaper at that time. The petitioners have, accordingly, been held not eligible to apply under oustees quota plot in other sectors. Besides this, false and wrong averment has been made in the order passed by HUDA that no plot is available in Sector 25, Panchkula for allotment.
Reply has also been filed. Though number of other pleas are raised but at the time of argument, the counsel for HUDA has only referred to Annexure R-2/3, which is a newspaper cutting advertising allotment of residential plot in Sector 25, Panchkula. From this, the counsel would contend that wide publicity was given for all to make application for allotment of plot and since the petitioners had not made any application, they are rendered ineligible for allotment of plot as oustees.
The stand reflected by HUDA, to say the least, is not only misconceived but in violation of the directions issued by this Court. The Division Bench while allowing the earlier writ petition has clearly held, on the basis of policy that HUDA was required to bring it to the notice of the oustees C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 5 }:
to make an application for allotment of plot. If wide publicity through newspaper was the reason not to give this intimation, as per the policy, the same should have been reflected in the stand which was projected before the Division bench. Now, the HUDA cannot be permitted to take the different stand, which was not projected while earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was decided by this Court. No efforts were made to seek review of the earlier order, if it was not in accordance with the stand taken by HUDA.
I am prima facie of the view that the authorities of HUDA had made an attempt to overreach the Court. The action of the Estate Officer, HUDA in rejecting the claim of the petitioners would not only stand in violation of the directions issued by this Court but apparently is false and misleading. It is clearly mentioned in the impugned order that there is no plot available in Sector 25, Panchkula. When this was contradicted by the counsel for the petitioners by bringing on record certain information, the counsel appearing for HUDA after proper instructions had to concede before this Court that the plots are still available in Sector 25 also. Why the Estate Officer has tried to provide a misleading and false information before this Court is not understood. Is it only to defeat the right for claim? This cannot be ignored by the court and would C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 6 }:
be an issue, which has to be taken note of. The case, thus, is made not only for issuing direction to the HUDA to allot plot to the petitioners as oustees in Sector 25, Panchkula (if same is available) immediately. Even if no plot is available in Sector 25, Panchkula, the petitioners would be allotted the plots in adjoining sector, as per the policy of HUDA. The Estate Officer after complying with the order would submit the compliance report before this Court on 07.03.2011.
In the meantime, let the notice issue to the Estate Officer, HUDA as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him and as to why the disciplinary proceedings be also not directed against him for providing false and misleading information before the Court."
The case then came up for hearing on 7.3.2011. The Court noticed the submissions as under:-
"Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners have been allotted a plot. Copy of the allotment letter is handed over to counsel for the petitioner.
Let the Estate Officer file an affidavit indicating the circumstances under which the order could not be complied with and also showing that the order has now been complied with fully.
Adjourned to 20.4.2011."
The counsel had clearly stated before the Court that plot C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 7 }:
had been allotted to the petitioners. Even copy of the allotment letter was handed over. Counsel for the petitioners had expressed doubt about the allotment from the wording of the letter. The Estate Officer even had not filed any response to the notice explaining non- compliance and notice was issued to him vide order dated 17.2.2011, reproduced above. The Estate Officer was further directed to show that the order has now been complied with fully. Still, the Estate Officer chose not to file the required affidavit. Rather, a shift in stand was noticed on the next date.
When the case came up for hearing on 20.4.2011, the counsel for HUDA stated that the affidavit was available with him. He was directed to file the same in the Registry. The counsel, however, made a statement before the Court that earlier was only an offer for allotment made to the petitioners and now decision has been taken to allot a plot to the petitioners subject to certain conditions. Since this stand was different than what was earlier projected before the Court, the directions were issued for the Estate Officer to come present and the case was adjourned to 28.4.2011.
On 28.4.2011, counsel is changed by HUDA and a different counsel appeared, who prayed for time on the ground that earlier counsel representing HUDA had resigned from the panel. The Estate Officer had still not filed any affidavit, as was required of him. The Estate Officer was bound to realise that he was under notice for initiation of contempt proceedings as well as disciplinary proceedings. The Court accordingly noticed that change of counsel C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 8 }:
would not absolve the Estate Officer from his responsibility to obey the directions issued by this Court in filing affidavit or for allotment of a plot. On request of the counsel, the case was adjourned subject to payment of `10,000/- as costs, which were directed to be recovered from both the Estate Officers, who had not complied with the order. The Estate Officers were also required to file affidavits, explaining reason as to why they had not complied with the order passed by this Court and as to why action be not taken against them. The case was then adjourned to 5.5.2011.
Separate affidavits have been filed by S.P.Arora, who was earlier Estate Officer and now working as Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner as well as by the present Estate Officer, Ashwani Sharma. In the affidavit filed by the present Estate Officer, he has explained reasons of delay in making the allotment of plot in favour of the petitioners. It is stated that verification and checking of documents was needed and the petitioners were accordingly asked to submit these documents for perusal and examination. It has been found that the petitioners have applied for a plot in pursuance to the advertisement now issued in 2009 and accordingly were entitled to the allotment as oustees. The delay is further explained on the ground that one of the petitioners is dead and so the L.Rs were required to bring the certificate. The petitioners have now been issued allotment letter.
In a separate affidavit filed by the earlier Estate Officer, (Mr.S.P.Arora) has stated that he had remained posted as Estate C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 9 }:
Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, w.e.f. 4.5.2005 to 30.9.2007 and thereafter had no control over the office of Estate Officer. He has made reference to the earlier order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.872 of 2005, which was decided on 4.7.2006. He accordingly states he could not process the file of allotment of the plot to the petitioners, for which he had filed response in the contempt petition also.
I am not in a position to appreciate the attitude adopted by respondent-HUDA as well as both the Estate Officers. The present Estate Officer is certainly found wanting in complying with the directions issued by this Court. Once this Court has issued direction for allotment of a plot, there was no reason or authority with the Estate Officer to still consider the eligibility or right of the petitioners to get this allotment. If there was any grievance against the order passed, the same was required to be taken in appeal. The earlier Estate Officer, namely, S.P.Arora, has also misinformed himself in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. In fact, it is his action, which primarily has led to the present situation. This Officer had denied the claim of the petitioners on the grounds that the petitioners had not applied for allotment of plot under oustees quota. Reliance is made to advertisement Annexure R2/3 issued to oust the petitioners to say that they had not applied for plot. If the Estate Officer had applied his mind to the policies, he would have certainly found that oustees claim is required to be separately called and satisfied before going in for floating the plot for general public. That is what was considered by C.M. Nos.6310 & 6423 of 2011 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21713 OF 2008 :{ 10 }:
the Division Bench of this Court while issuing directions. The Estate Officer had mis-informed himself about the policies and the effect of order passed by this Court.
Additional ground taken by Mr.S.P.Arora to reject the claim of the petitioners was that no plot was available in Sector 25. This again has been found to be false, wrong and misleading. In fact, the petitioners have now been allotted a plot in Sector 25. Earlier also, the petitioners had been crying hoarse that the plots were available in Sector 25 about which they furnished information before the Court. If the plots are available in a Sector for which the land of a person is acquired, then his claim as oustee can still be considered as per HUDA policies. There is, thus, no justification on the part of both the Estate Officers to act in a manner they did. The prayer made by the counsel to show leniency and to exempt the Estate Officer from payment of cost, therefore, is declined. The costs have accordingly been paid in the Court. However, otherwise taking lenient view of the entire issue and keeping in view that order has now been complied with, I am not inclined to either further pursue the issue of contempt due to respective action on the part of Estate Officers for disobeying the order passed by this Court or to direct initiation of any disciplinary action against them.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the plot has now been allotted to the petitioners.
May 05,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE