RAM KUMAR GUPTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the Ist respondent dated 27. 6. 1991 (Annexure P-3) and also the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 7. 1. 1992 vide Annexure P-4.

(2.) THE petitioner was allotted an industrial plot bearing No. 55 in Sector 25 in the Industrial Area at Panipat measuring 1050 sq. metres in the year 1993. Adjoining to the said plot, there is a triangular piece of land measuring 679 sq. metres which was not utilized, As the said land which was adjoining his plot was lying vacant/unutilized, the petitioner made an application on 11. 5. 1989 to the 3rd respondent to allot the same to him. As no order have been passed on his application, he made another application on 7. 11. 1990. The Ist respondent passed an order dated 27. 6. 1991 allotting the said additional land to the petitioner at a rate of Rs. 455. 12 Ps. per sq. yard. The 3rd respondent informed of the same to the petitioner by his letter dated 7. 1. 1992 (Annexure P-4 ). According to the petitioner, the rate charged by the respondents for the said additional land is unreasonable and according to him, the said land has to be allotted to him at the original price of Rs. 190.00 per sq. metre. He further submitted that some of the allotted were charged the original price of Rs. 190.00 per sq. metre. As the respondents have not decided his representation dated 13. 1. 1992 and also the further representation dated 20. 1. 1992, the petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing that part of the order of the Ist respondent demanding Rs. 455. 12 Ps. per sq. metre for the land in question and to direct the respondents to transfer the said land in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 190.00 per sq. metre.

(3.) IT is the contention of the respondents that as per the guidelines for allotment of industrial open spaces to the allottees circulated vide Memo No. A-11-87/7949-64 dated 19. 3. 1987, the allottee has to pay the rate of the year of allotment of additional land to the allottee and not the rate of original allotment and the rate being charged from the petitioner is in accordance with the Policy of the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the resolution which was passed prior to 1987. "