Punjab-Haryana High Court
Govind Yadav vs Chief Administrator Housing Board ... on 3 September, 2014
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kuldip Singh
CWP No.17727 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17727 of 2014
Date of Decision : September 03, 2014
Govind Yadav ...... Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Administrator and another ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has claimed a writ of mandamus for allotment of flat for economically weaker section ( in short 'EWS') in Sectors 42 and 52, Gurgaon. The claim of the petitioner is that since EWS flats are available than what were advertised in the year 2004, therefore, the petitioner, who is in the waiting list is entitled to an allotment of a flat.
A perusal of the writ petition shows that applications were invited for allotment of 320 flats in November 2004. The name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.9 in the waiting list. It is not disputed that 320 flats stand allotted. The grievance of the petitioner is that in fact 374 flats were constructed. Therefore, the remaining flats should have been allotted to the persons, who are in the waiting list.
The challenge is to an advertisement (Annexure P-6) published for inviting applications for remaining 54 flats. The mere fact that the name of the petitioner at one stage figured in the waiting list does not confer any SARITA RANI 2014.09.08 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17727 of 2014 -2- enforceable legal right upon the petitioner. The flats as were advertised stands allotted. The petitioner cannot claim any right against the flats which were not even advertised. The Full Bench of this Court in case of "Surjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others" AIR 1980, Punjab 65, has held that the mere submission of application does not confer any enforceable right. It was held that by filing an application, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application, but he does not get a vested right for allotment of the plot. The Court observed as under:-
"......By filing an application in accordance with law, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application, but he does not get a vested right for allotment of the plot. The conditions laid down in the first scheme or the provisions of rule 5 (3) do not give any right to the applicants to claim allotment of plots as a matter of right. There is nothing in the scheme or the Act or the Rules which requires the adoption of the principle of 'first come fir served' at the time of allotment, or debars the Government from adopting the method of drawing lots. The petitioners have not been able to lay foundation for establishing their right which could legally be enforced and the petitioners have completely failed to make out a case for the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab, (2010) 4 SCC 192, observed as:-
"38. We shall now deal with the question whether the writ petitioners are entitled to allotment of residential plots in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali. As noted hereinabove, the writ petitioners had invoked the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and urged that even though the application form contained a stipulation that acceptance of application and earnest money will not put the Corporation under an obligation to allot a plot to the applicant, they were reasonably sure of getting residential plots because in 2002 the Corporation had undertaken a similar exercise and allotted 138 freehold plots in Focal Point, Mohali by inviting applications and holding draw of lots.
39. We are in complete agreement with the Division Bench of the High SARITA RANI 2014.09.08 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17727 of 2014 -3- Court that no promise much less an enforceable promise was made by the Corporation to the prospective applicants that by making an application pursuant to the advertisement and on being declared successful in the draw of lots, they will get residential plots. Rather, being conscious of the fact that in terms of the approval accorded by the State Government vide Memo dated 26-12-2001, it could utilise 20-30% area of the focal point only for industrial housing, the Corporation had made it clear to the prospective applicants that there is no certainty of their getting residential plots in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali. The decision taken by the Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation to approve the layouts of residential pockets in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali was not final. The same was subject to sanction of change of land use in accordance with the provisions of the 1995 Act."
In view of the said judgments, the mere fact that the name of the petitioner at one stage was reflected in the waiting list does not confer any enforceable legal right upon the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(KULDIP SINGH)
September 03, 2014 JUDGE
sarita
SARITA RANI
2014.09.08 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh