VEENA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure P10), vide which respondent No. 1 reviewed the order dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P5), rendered by the then Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Town & Country Planning, whereby the residential site/plot allotted to the allottee was restored.

(2.) In brief, vide allotment letter dated 04.09.1991 (Annexure P1), issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Bhiwani (respondent No. 3), a residential plot bearing No. 218, Sector 23, measuring 10 marlas was allotted to Sh. Ashok Bhalla (hereinafter referred to as the allottee) for a sum of Rs. 1,17,480/ -. As per the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, 75% of the price of the plot could either be deposited in lump -sum within 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter without interest or in 6 half yearly installments along with 10% interest. As the allottee failed to deposit balance 75% price of the plot, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 17.01.2001 (Annexure P2), resumed the site. Appeal preferred by the allottee, through his duly constituted attorney, namely, Sh. Rajpal, against the order of resumption was dismissed by the Administrator, HUDA, vide order dated 24.02.2006 (Annexure P3). However, the revisional authority in reference to the decision rendered by this court in CWP No. 8048 of 2008, decided on 06.01.2009 [M/s. Akash Ganga and another v/s. State of Haryana] and, for the allottee was willing to retain the site even at current price i.e. Rs. 2,800/ - per sq. yard, ordered its re -allotment vide order dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P5). The conclusion reads thus:

(3.) Accordingly, respondent No. 3 delivered actual physical possession of the site to the allottee and issued a possession certificate dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P6). Deed of conveyance, dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P8), was also executed in his favour by respondent No. 3. Subsequently, he was even accorded permission to transfer the site in favour of the petitioner i.e. Veena Rani, vide letter dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P7). And, vide a sale deed dated 30.11.2012, executed by the allottee, the site was sold to the petitioner. As a result, re -allotment letter, dated 19.03.2013, was issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 3. Petitioner commenced construction at site, which was purportedly near completion at the time of institution of this petition.