ASHISH YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ of mandamus is prayed for directing the respondents No. 2 & 3 to issue the letter of allotment qua a residential site that was allotted to the petitioner under the oustees scheme. And, the petitioner be delivered the actual physical possession thereof.

(2.) A brief narration of facts that has led the parties to the current stage would be imperative. Land of the petitioner as also of the other landowners was acquired by the State of Haryana for development and utilization thereof as a residential and commercial area for Sector 9, Part II, Sector 32 and Sector 33, Urban Estates, Karnal. In terms of the policy of the State Government, the landowners whose land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose were entitled to an allotment of a plot. Petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal plot under the oustees scheme/quota and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/ - along with his application dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure P1). In a draw held by respondent No. 3, on 10.09.2009, plot bearing No. 409 -P, measuring 20 marlas (1 kanal), in Sector 32, was allotted to the petitioner. However, a formal letter of allotment was to follow in due course. But was never received by the petitioner. Petitioner represented to respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 10.04.2010 (Annexure P2) in this regard. Respondent No. 3, in response, vide letter dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P3), informed the petitioner that in fact the letter of allotment had already been sent to the petitioner vide letter memo No. 3233, dated 09.03.2010. Petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 3 on numerous occasions thereafter and requested to issue a fresh allotment letter, but to no avail. Petitioner submitted yet another representation, dated 06.05.2010 (Annexure P4), to respondent No. 3 and reiterated his grievance. Copy of the said letter was also endorsed to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No. 2). That being so, respondent No. 3 wrote to respondent No. 4 i.e. Superintendent of Post Office, Head Post Office, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, to ascertain whether the letter of allotment, sent vide registered letter No.A - 1203 dated 09.03.2010, was indeed delivered to the petitioner. But, as no tangible result emerged, petitioner vide letter dated 17.07.2010 (Annexure P5) reminded respondent No. 3 to provide the necessary information. It was in the last week of July, 2010, petitioner received a letter bearing No. 7460 dated 21.06.2010 from the office of respondent No. 3, vide which he was informed that respondent No. 4 had confirmed that allotment letter was delivered to the petitioner on 10.03.2010. Again, petitioner appeared before respondent No. 3 and maintained that how could an allotment letter be delivered to the petitioner when he was no longer residing at the address at which it was sent. He requested for issuance of another copy so that he could meet the conditions or requirement of allotment. And, it was only when the petitioner raised this issue with the senior officers of the department, respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 07.09.2010, which was stated to be accompanied by a photocopy of the letter that was sent by the postal department confirming the receipt of the allotment letter by the petitioner as also the letter of allotment itself. But surprisingly, the envelope only contained the letter dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure P6) and the two other letters, which were purportedly appended therewith, were neither sent nor found. However, vide memo No.ZO004/ EO016/UE026/DELET/000000 -2024, dated 28.09.2010 (Annexure P7), issued by respondent No. 3, petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,42,819/ -, owing to the variation in the cost of the allotted site on account of enhancement in the land compensation award to the landowners. Petitioner could either deposit the entire amount within 30 days from the issuance of the said letter or pay the amount in five half yearly installments with 15% interest. Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 11,62,101/ -, which was duly accepted by respondent No. 3. But, despite that being so, the authorities failed to issue a formal letter of allotment to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, he even filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, which was subsequently withdrawn being not maintainable. It is maintained that on the one hand, respondent No. 3 had demanded and accepted the amount deposited by the petitioner, as indicated above, and on the other, neither any letter of allotment was issued nor petitioner was offered possession of the allotted site. This is how, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) Respondents No. 2 & 3, in the written statement filed on their behalf, have reiterated their position and maintained that the letter of allotment was sent to the petitioner at the address given in the application form through registered post vide RL No. 1203, dated 09.03.2010. And, respondent No. 4 confirmed that the said letter was delivered to the petitioner on 10.03.2010. For, in terms of condition No. 5 of the allotment letter, petitioner was required to deposit 15% of the tentative price of the plot within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said letter i.e. upto 08.04.2010 and convey his acceptance, petitioner having failed to respond and deposit the requisite amount entailed automatic cancellation of the allotted site.