SATISH SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the communication dated July 5, 2005 (Annexure P-14) whereby the petitioner has been informed by the respondents that as per the record of the office, the draw of plot No. 1486, Sector 57, Gurgaon is in the name of Om Parkash Kukreja son of Sh. Pritam Dass Kukreja. According to the petitioner, in the original draw of lots, he was successful qua plot No. 1486, Sector 57, Gurgaon.

(2.) Sh. Dinesh Nagar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 has produced before us the original record. A perusal of the aforesaid record shows that it was Om Parkash Kukreja, son of Pritam Dass Kukreja who was declared successful in the said draw of lots. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, Sh. Sandeep Moudgil, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the application No. of the petitioner as well as the application No. of Mr. Om Parkash Kukreja was same, and therefore, the petitioner could not be denied the allotment of the plot.

(3.) Keeping in view the controversy raised by the petitioner, we are satisfied that the disputed questions of fact have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition which can not be determined by this Court for want of evidence.