MAJOR PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question the order dated June 30, 1981 passed by General Officer Commanding, Headquarters, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh Area, Ambala Cantt. (Annexure P-8) as also order dated September 8, 1982 passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana (Annexure P-12) made where appeal carried by him against the order dated June 30, 1981 was dismissed. He further prays for a direction to be issued to respondent No. 3 to re-allot to him plot No. 225-P, Sector 12 in Panchkula Urban Estate and if that be not possible, to allot him any other plot in the said Urban Estate. Brief facts giving rise to this petition need to be briefly enumerated.

(2.) THE petitioner had been serving in the Indian Army and whilst serving in 90 Field Regiment C/o 56 APO in the field area, had submitted an application through Headquarters, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh Area in Ambala Cantt for allotment of 300 square meters plot in the Urban Estate at Panchkula. This application was filed in response to the scheme made by the Haryana Urban Development Authorities for allotment of plot in Defence Colony, Panchkula to persons serving in the armed force. As per scheme and Rules which came into being for allotment of residential plots to armed personnel, petitioner was eligible to be considered for allotment of 420 square meters plot. Copy of scheme/rule (Annexure P-1) would show that even though an Army Officer who was holding the rank of Major was entitled to a plot of 300 square meters yet he could also be considered for allotment of 420 square meters plot depending on availability. In consequence of this application, petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 300 square meters which was a preferential plot bearing No. 225-P in Sector 12, Panchkula on additional payment of Rs. 1,973. 40 P. vide allotment letter dated November 9, 1979 issued by the Estate Officer respondent No. 3. The moment petitioner received the aforesaid allotment letter and came to know that he was allotted a plot of 300 square meters which happend to be preferential plot on payment of additional money, he explained vide his letter dated November 22, 1979 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No. 3 that he had not asked for a preferential plot and also that he could be allotted a plot of 420 square meters instead of 300 square meters and, therefore, he would not like to make the additional payment as demanded. He further explained that he would be grateful if he could be allotted a residential plot of 420 square meters and be intimated the probable date of allotment so that he was in a position to make the payment without any delay. No reply was given to the petitioner, thus, constaining him to send reminders dated 15. 5. 1980, 27. 9. 1980 and 13. 1. 1981. Even the reminder elicited no response from the Estate Officer. Being posted at far off place, petitioner deputed one of his friends Major P. S Bains who was incidentally serving at Chandi Mandir to visit respondent No. 3 personally and find out as to what was happenings either to the plot that was allotted to him or his request for allotment of 420 square meters plot that he had conveyed to the Estate Officer vide his letter dated November 22, 1979. On enquiries, Major P. S. Bains came to know that plot No. 225-P in Sector 12 still stood in the name of the petitioner and on the request made by him for allotment of plot of bigger size, no orders have been passed. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioner accepting the allotment of plot bearing No. 225-P in Sector 12 sent a Bank Draft for an amount of Rs. 5,830. 27 P, in favour of the Estate Officer alongwith covering letter dated February 16, 1981. This amount was received by the Estate officer on February 24, 1981. The petitioner thereafter addressed letters on March 31, 1981 and April 7, 1981 asking the Estate Officer to inform him the balance amount that was required to be paid by him but he received no reply. Ft is only on June 30, 1981 that the petitioner came to know from respondent No. 4 i. e. General Officer Commanding that the plot bearing No. 225-P allotted to him has since been cancelled and the same has instead been allotted to one Major P. S. Bajwa. Petitioner thereafter sent some letters to the Estate Officer but no reply was received at his end. He carried an appeal against the order, referred to above, before the Chief Administrator which did not find favour with the said authorities and was dismissed vide order dated September 8, 1982. The case of petitioner, thus, is that the allotment of plot in question could not be cancelled for the reason that he had paid all the instalments that were due on February 24, 1981 and after accepting all the payments, it was not open to the respondent-authorities to cancel the allotment made in his favour. No order on receipt of his explanatory letter for cancellation of plot allotted to him was passed by the Estate Officer and that the petitioner had neither been served with any notice nor he was afforded any opportunity to be heard by the Estate Officer before issuance of the impugned order dated June 30, 1981. He further contends that the impugned orders were unjust and unfair and were the result of complete failure on the part of the authorities to appreciate the facts that the petitioner was not defaulter in the payment of any instalment on the date of cancellation of allotment by the Estate Officer.

(3.) THIS petition has been contested. On the preliminary objections raised by the respondents that an alternative remedy was available, the petition in the first instance was dismissed by this Court on August 1, 1983. However, when the respondent-authorities themselves realised that no alternative remedy was available under section 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, a request was made to reopen the case and the Writ Petition was admitted to a regular hearing. In the written statement as also in the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been mainly contended that whereas 10% of the total tentative price was required to be paid at the time of making application, 15% of the total consideration was necessarily to be paid within 30 days from the date of allotment of plot. Once 15% of the total amount was not paid within the stipulated time, it involved automatic cancellation of plot. In any case, it is averred in the written statement that the petitioner himself asked for cancellation of the plot that was allotted to him and it is too late in the day for him to ask either for the restoration of the said plot or an alternative plot in lieu thereof.