RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as HUDA) in Sector 57, Gurgaon. The petitioner submitted application form bearing No.7762 to the respondents well before the last date of submission thereof, after fulfilling all the formalities indicated therein. On the submission of the aforesaid application form, the petitioner was assigned registration No.G57-123255.

(2.) Draw of lots was conducted to determine the list of successful candidates. The said draw of lots was held on 25.11.2004. Immediately thereafter, the list of successful candidates was published in the Danik Jagran wherein the petitioner was found successful. The list which appeared in Danik Jagran depicted that the applicant bearing registration No.G57-123255 had been allotted plot No.3379 in Sector 57, Gurgaon. It is the case of the petitioner that a similar list was displayed on the notice board by the HUDA. Consequent upon the success of the petitioner in the draw of lots, the petitioner received a large number of letters from the brokers/property dealers soliciting the sale/purchase of the plot in question. On the basis of factual position enumerated hereinabove, the petitioner claims his right to be assigned plot No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon consequent upon draw of lots conducted on 25.11.2004.

(3.) A joint written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. An independent reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 i.e. candidate who has actually been allotted plot No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon. A perusal of written statement filed jointly on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 reveals that application form number as well as registration number of the petitioner was mistakenly depicted in the Danik Jagran as well as on the notice in the office of HUDA, whereas, the factual position is that plot bearing No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon was actually drawn in favour of respondent No.3 at the time of draw of lots on 25.11.2004. In order to substantiate the aforesaid claim, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently contended that the plot assigned to respondent No.3 bearing No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon meausres 8 Marlas whereas the petitioner had applied only for a 10 Marla plot, and that, he was ineligible for the grant of a 8 Marla plot in furtherance of his application form No.7762 which was subsequently registered as G57-123255.