NEELAM JAIN Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Neelam Jain through present petition filed by her under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to allot her a plot in Sector 2, Urban Estate, Ambala. The facts from which the relief aforesaid stems, need a brief, mention.

(2.) THE Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Ambala, invited applications for allotment of 210 meters plots in Sector 2, Ambala during February/march, 1979. The plots were to be allotted on first come first served basis. Under the scheme, the applicants seeking allotment were to deposit earnest money for allotment of plot which the petitioner as well deposited by demand draft of Rs. 1373/- dated March 16, 1979. Inasmuch the number of applications out-numbered the plots available for accommodating them, the matter was to be decided by draw of lots. Petitioners was not lucky enough to come in the draw of lots. However, she was informed that she was placed on the waiting list at Sr. No. 2. A communication to that effect has been placed on records of this case as Annexure P 2. Some representations were made in the matter by the petitioner praying for allotment of plot by contending therein that certain plots were available for allotment and since the petitioner had acquired the right of allotment out of the preferential quota, she might be accommodated. One such representation which came before respondent HUDA was considered and a communication was addressed to her on February 6, 1987 in turn directing the Estate Officer. HUDA, Ambala, to consider her request. Petitioner thereafter came to know that plot Nos. 573 and 754 which were allotted to Haryana Housing Board were surrendered by it and the same were available. This fact was brought to the notice of respondents but the case of petitioner is that no action was taken in the matter. Thereafter, respondents advertised for allotment of plots to employees in the same sector. This was done with a view to give some percentage of plots to the employees. From this averment, petitioner pleads that there were plots available in Sector 2 where she could be accommodated. However, when her entreaties brought no tangible results, she filed writ petition in this Court and the matter came up for hearing before Division Bench on November 21, 1988 when the following order was passed :

(3.) THE facts aforesaid manifest that the order passed by this Court on November 21,1988 which is, admittedly, an order inter-se parties, clothed the petitioner for allotment of plot in case she was successful in the draw of lots which draw of lots had necessarily to be carried on in case the plots referred to in the petition, were to come in possession of the respondents. Form the written statement, contents whereof have been noticed above, it is clear that three plots did come into possession of respondents as the same were surrendered by the Housing Board which was unable to pay the instalments and had not made any construction. Respondents, in view of the order referred to above, can not be permitted to change its stand by pleading that inasmuch as the plots in question have to be constructed for allotment of staff attached to HUDA, there will be no draw of lots. In clear view of this Court it is in complete violation of the undertaking given by the counsel representing respondents in Civil Writ Petition No. 6313 of 1987 which was filed by petitioner prior in point of time and reference of which has been given above. No justifiable ground is available to the respondents now at this stage to change their instance. This course is also not to be permitted as petitioner, who was given hope of allotment of plot, obviously, did not focus her attention on any other plot and at this stage if she has to go in for the purchase of a plot of similar kind, she will have to pay, perhaps six to seven times the price on which the plot was available at the time when she sought for the same in Sector 2, Urban Estate, Ambala.