RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order dated 9.9.2014, Annexure P.5 passed by respondent No.1 Secretary and Financial Commissioner, Town and Country Planning, Haryana whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order dated 15.7.2004 in respect of Plot bearing SSB No.170, Sector 13, Part II (16 and 17), Hisar, passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, respondent No.3 was dismissed. Prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to restore back the site in question to the petitioner.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) held public auction of residential and commercial site on 15.10.2003. The petitioner participated in the said auction and he was the highest bidder for Plot bearing SSB No.170, 13, Part II (16 and 17), Urban Estate, Hisar for Rs. 8,11,000/ -. The said bid was accepted as per provisions of HUDA Act, 1977 (in short, "the HUDA Act") and Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1978 (in short, "the Regulations"). The petitioner being the highest bidder deposited 10% amount i.e. Rs. 81,000/ - on the fall of hammer at the spot. As per the regulations, the bid had to be approved by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. According to the petitioner, the bid in the present case was not approved by the Chief Administrator and hence the action of the respondents was against Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations. The petitioner did not receive any allotment letter inspite of his many visits to the office of respondent No.3. During the second week of April 2010, he came to know that the allotment letter was issued and thereafter the same was cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the allotment and cancellation letters to respondent No.3 vide application dated 16.4.2010, Annexure P.1. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 100/ - for supply of copies of the allotment and cancellation letters. On 3.5.2010, the petitioner was supplied the copies of the orders. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No.1 for setting aside the impugned order. He appeared before respondent No.1 on 31.1.2014.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.