SANJAY ARORA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRIOR to March 8, 2000, a person who had been allotted a plot by the Haryana Urban Development Authority was entitled to have it transferred to any other person by paying the transfer fee and getting the requisite permission. On March 8, 2000, the Chief Administrator stopped this. It was provided that the allottee shall have to first get a Conveyance Deed executed in his own favour and then sell it to another person. Thus, the registration charges were required to be paid more than once.

(2.) WE have a bunch of eleven petitions. In all these cases the basic issue is - Does the letter of March 8, 2000 even apply to cases in which permission for transfer of the plot had been given prior to the date of the issue thereof. The second question that arises is - Have the respondents acted illegally in cancelling the permission for transfer or the actual 're- transfer' of the plot without the grant of any opportunity to the persons concerned ?

(3.) THE dispute in this case relates to plot No. 1860, Sector 9, Karnal. It was initially allotted to Mr. Sham Lal Sehgal. With the permission of the Haryana Urban Development Authority it was transferred in the name of Mr. Satinder Kumar and his wife Smt. Nirmla Devi. On June 29, 1999 the petitioner entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mr. Satinder Kumar for the purchase of this plot. Vide application dated January 28, 2000 he sought the permission for the transfer of the plot in his name. It has been stated by the counsel that the requisite transfer fee had been paid. The permission was accorded vide order dated March 1, 2000. A copy of this communication has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. In pursuance to this permission the petitioner claims to have filed the requisite documents as asked for.