NAND LAL BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA), Rohtak, advertised some plots of various sizes in Sector-1, Rohtak on 27th May, 1985. Last date for submission of applications was 26th January, 1985. Tentative price of 10 Marlas plot was Rs. 56,710/-. Since the applicants were less than the plots available, therefore, the advertisement dated 27th May, 1985 was cancelled. Estate Officer HUDA again advertised the plots of various sizes in Sector-1 on 1st August, 1986. The last date for submission of applications was 1st September, 1986. Tentative price of 10 Marlas plot was again fixed at Rs. 56,710/-. Again he applicants were less than the plots available and as such all the applicants who had applied in time were allotted the plots. Sufficient plots of various sizes still remained available with the Estate Officer. Chief Administrator HUDA decided that plots in low demand area including Rohtak be allotted on 'first come first serve' basis and the price to be charged was to be calculated after adding ten per increase in original price upto 31st March, 1988. Copy of the letter issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA has been attached as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner applied for 10 marla residential plot alongwith bank draft No. 599122 dated 5th April, 1986 for Rs. 15,125/- being 25% price of the plot. Application alongwith Bank draft was given by the petitioner personally in the office of Estate Officer on 5th April, 1988. It is stated in the petition that on the day of application plots No. 144 and 703 measuring 10 marlas each in Sector-1, Rohtak were available. Respondents No. 4 and 5 also applied for 10 marlas plots in Sector-1, Rohtak alonwith the requisite amount on 6th April, 1988. The respondent authorities allotted both the plots to respondents No. 4 and 5 and ignored the petitioner's claim without any reasonable basis. According to the policy (Annexure P-1) HUDA authorities were to allot the plots on 'first come first serve' basis but the petitioner's claim though prior in time, was ignored and the plots were allotted to respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) Petitioner made a complaint dated 26th April, 1988 to the Chief Administrator HUDA Mani Majra, Chandigarh stating therein that petitioner's claim has been ignored and that plots No. 144 and 703 had been allotted to respondents No. 4 and 5 with ulterior motive. Copy of complaint is attached as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Chief Administrator HUDA wrote to the Administrator HUDA, at Gurgaon for making enquiry in the matter and a copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner as well which has been placed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner did not get any intimation regarding the result of the enquiry conducted by Administrator, HUDA Gurgaon. On 7th June, 1988, petitioner received a registered letter from Estate Officer, HUDA, informing him that plot No. 144 in Sector-1, Rohtak has been allotted to another person and as such the said plot could not be allotted to him and it was further mentioned that Bank Draft of Rs. 15,125/- is returned with the said letter. Aggrieved against this action of the respondents, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.