Greater Mohali Area Dev. Authority & Ors vs Manju Jain & Ors on 19 August, 2010
In Manju Jain's case (supra), the Court held to the
following effect:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)Surjit Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 1983
"......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."
Industrial Assistance Group ... vs Shri Ashutosh Ahluwalia And Anr. on 21 March, 2001
In the judgment referred to by learned counsel for the
petitioner in Industrial Assistance Group (supra), a concluded contract
after the allotment came in to existence but in view of the subsequent
policy, Haryana Urban Development Authority refused to complete
the formalities. It is in these circumstances, it was held that allotment
once made cannot be withheld on account of subsequent change of
policy. The said judgment does not deal with the issue that merely on
submission of an application form, the plot has to be allotted.
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, the learned Senior Counsel Mr Rakesh Dwivedi has
rightly placed reliance upon the same in support of the case of the
first defendant, which would clearly go to show that the plaintiff
had not acquired any right and no vested right has been accrued in
his favour in respect of the plot in question merely because his bid
amount is highest and he had deposited 20% of the highest bid
amount along with the earnest money with the Board. In the
absence of acceptance of bid offered by the plaintiff to the
competent authority of the first defendant, there is no concluded
contract in respect of the plot in question, which is evident from
letters dated 26-5-1977 and 8-7-1977 wherein the third defendant
had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same
was refunded to him by way of demand draft, which is an
undisputed fact and it is also not his case that the then Assistant
Housing Commissioner who has conducted the public auction had
accepted the bid of the plaintiff."
Delhi Development Authority vs Pushpendra Kumar Jain on 23 September, 1994
"21. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to
allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a
view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a
method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of
selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or
selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a
legal right to allotment. (See DDA v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, AIR
1995 SCC 1)."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kabul Singh And Ors. vs Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... on 10 January, 1997
A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as
(2001)(2) PLR 759 titled Dr. K.L. Sharma v. State of Punjab, referred
to judgment of Surjit Singh's case (supra); 1997(2) RRR (Civil) 498
(P&H) titled Kabul Singh and others v. Punjab Urban Planning and
Development Authority and CWP No.8905 of 1997 titled The Express
Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others v. State of
Haryana through its Chief Secretary and others, decided on
GULATI DIWAKER
2015.03.03 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP Nos.12933 of 2001; 8
CWP No.19680 of 2001 and
CWP No.1552 of 2002
03.10.1997, to hold that by submitting application in pursuance of the
advertisement issued, they did not acquire a right to be allotted plots.
Chandigarh Police Cooperative Housing ... vs Chandigarh Administration on 27 September, 2000
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2001(4) SCC 359 titled
Industrial Assistance Group Government of Haryana v. Ashutosh
Ahluwalia; Civil Appeal No.6668 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and
GULATI DIWAKER
2015.03.03 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP Nos.12933 of 2001; 5
CWP No.19680 of 2001 and
CWP No.1552 of 2002
others v. K. L. Sharma, decided on 08.10.2004 and judgment of
Division Bench of this Court reported as 2001 AIR (Punjab) 230 titled
Chandigarh Police Cooperative Housing Society v. Chandigarh
Administration.
Param Vaibhav Co-Operative Group ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 February, 2010
In Express Co-operative Group Housing Society's case
(supra) the Court said to the following effect:-
Lok Nath Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 31 January, 2012
A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as
(2001)(2) PLR 759 titled Dr. K.L. Sharma v. State of Punjab, referred
to judgment of Surjit Singh's case (supra); 1997(2) RRR (Civil) 498
(P&H) titled Kabul Singh and others v. Punjab Urban Planning and
Development Authority and CWP No.8905 of 1997 titled The Express
Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others v. State of
Haryana through its Chief Secretary and others, decided on
GULATI DIWAKER
2015.03.03 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP Nos.12933 of 2001; 8
CWP No.19680 of 2001 and
CWP No.1552 of 2002
03.10.1997, to hold that by submitting application in pursuance of the
advertisement issued, they did not acquire a right to be allotted plots.
1