VIRENDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine shall dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions - C. W. P. No. 10849 of 1992 and C. W. P. No. 5732 of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

(2.) THE facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 10849 of 1992. Varinder Singh and three others seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents-Haryana Urban Development Authority to allot them residential plots at Faridabad in consequence of being successful in draw of lots. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (herein after referred to as "the HUDA"), in the month of June, 1989 advertised some residential plots of different sizes in Sector 46, Part I of Faridabad. Petitioners 1 and 2 applied for six marla plots in General category while petitioners 3 and 4 applied for four marlas plots in General category. They deposited earnest money along with application forms and were allotted regisration numbers mentioned in Para No. 2 of the writ petition. The allotment was to be made by draw of lots and the petitioners were declared successful in the draw of lots held on 17th March, 1990 and intact were allotted plot Nos. 702, 715, 855 and 887 respectively, in Sector 46, Part I, Faridabad. The result of draw of lots was published in the leading newspapers including the Tribune, dated April 2, 1990. Whereas the allotment letters were issued to the other successful candidates, the petitioners did not receive the same. This obviously necessitated enquiries to be made form the HUDA. They were informed by the Estate Officer, HUDA that they should attend his office on 3rd July, 1990 in support of their eligibility for allotment of plats in BC Category. They were also directed to bring all the certificates which are required for the eligibility of the allotment of plot in the category of backward class as required in the advertisement. This was in regard to petition No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 was directed to bring certificate of Freedom Fighter, petitioner No. 3 to bring Certificate of War Widows while petitioner No. 4 to bring certificate of Defence. In response to this, the petitioners met the concerned authorities and pleaded before them that they had applied only against the general category and not against the reserved category and there was no question to bring the documents as mentioned by the Estate Officer. On 28th December, 1990, they were informed that they should collect the initial money that was deposited by them which entitled them to compete in the draw of lots. This was clear indication to the petitioners that no plot would be allotted to them. In wake of the circumstances herein mentioned above, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of the order.

(3.) THIS petition has been opposed and in the written statement filed on be half of the respondents. It has been mainly pleaded that the application of the petitioners were received in different categories. The application were assigned to N/s Harton Gurgaon for preparation of master-list, registration card, ready reck-onwer (category wise and size wise) etc. The registration containing all the relevant information regarding registration number, application number, category of applicant, size of plot etc. prepared by the said concern with the help of computer was mailed to each of the applicant including the petitioners. A sample of the registration card that was so sent, has been attached with the written statement as Annexure R. 1. It is pleaded that the applications were under consideration against the particulars contained in the registration card. It was stipulated therein that if the particulars given in the registration card were incorrect the discrepancy should be brought to the notice of the Estate Officer, HUDA. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were not registered in the correct category i. e. the category for which they applied but instead they were mistakenly registered in the category for which they were neither eligible nor applicants. In as much as the draw of lots of the petitiones was in wrong category i. e. the category to which they did not belong, there being successful in the draw of lots was wholly meaningless and when the mistake was detected, although after draw of lots, it was decided not to allot any plot to any of the petitioners. It has further been stated that enquiry was made and it came to the notice of the respondent-HUDA that the petitiones were not of the category under which their case of draw of lots was considered.