PARAMJIT SAINI Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PANCHKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Railways Welfare Organisation-respondent No. 3 is a registered society with its headquarters at New Delhi. It has been set up to provide houses for serving and retired railwaymen at All India level purely as a social welfare measure on 'no profit no loss' basis. This respondent floated in the year 1994 a scheme for constructing four-storeyed flats in Mansa Devi Urban Complex, Panchkula (Haryana) for serving and retired Railway employees on 'no profit no loss' basis. The scheme did not have sufficient response so as to make the dwelling units economically viable in terms of costs which had to be paid and borne by the allottees. The housing scheme was truncated and only 188 dwelling units out of the originally planned 476 dwelling units were constructed as Phase-I of the scheme. Since the scheme was not fully subscribed by the Railway personnel, it was thrown open to employees of other Government departments and Public Sector Undertakings. Subsequently, when the demand picked up the balance dwelling units were taken up for construction as Phase-II which is presently being executed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were allotted the dwelling units in Phase-I and they are in occupation of their respective units. Phase-I of the construction after its completion was handed over to the Rail Vihar Welfare Association which is a registered association of the allottees looking after the maintenance of the complex.

(2.) The primary grievance of the petitioners is that for undertaking the construction of Phase-II respondent No. 3 has got the plans revised from Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA) whereby the parking area and the land reserved for parks have been considerably reduced/diminished which has violated the rights of the allottees of the dwelling units in Phase-I. It is urged that as per the original sanctioned plan, respondent No. 3 has failed to provide adequate car/scooter parking in Phase-I of the housing project and thereby it has committed breach of building bye-laws of HUDA. It is also contended that in the revised sanctioned plan, respondent No. 3 has reduced the covered parking which is also contrary to the building bye-laws. Reference in this regard is made to the guidelines issued by HUDA whereby the norms have been laid down for open parks and parking spaces. It was strenuously contended by Shri Mittal on behalf of the petitioners that these norms and standards have indeed been thrown to the winds. Learned Counsel also referred to the provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987 to contend that the petitioners who are owners of individual dwelling units are entitled to the common areas and facilities as were sanctioned in the original plan and the respondents have no right to diminish those areas and facilities.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, the respondents have filed their reply. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula has filed the reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. These respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because the revised plans were approved/sanctioned as per HUDA norms and that if at all there is any deviation/change/encroachment by respondent No. 3, it would be checked at the time of issuance of final completion certificate. It is, therefore, contended that the writ petition is premature. On merits, it has been averred that the original plan as submitted by respondent No. 3 for the entire complex had been approved as per HUDA norms and that the respondents constructed a part of the complex as per the approved plan and obtained occupation certificate for the same. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 had submitted the revised building plans with a changed concept of the buildings for remaining portion of the site which have also been approved as per the norms. Respondent No. 3 has filed a separate reply emphatically denying the averments made by the petitioners.