GANGA DHAR Vs. ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition seeks the quashing of the communication dated 24. 2. 1988, Annexure P-5 with a further prayer that the amount paid by him be ordered to be refunded to him.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties are agreed that the order passed in this writ petition shall squarely cover the dispute raised in C. W. P. Nos. 3669, 3670, 3671 of 1988, 974 and 975 of 1989 as all these writ petitions raise identical questions of fact and law. In this view of the matter, this order shall dispose of these five writ petitions as well.

(3.) THE allegations made in the writ petition have been denied by filing a written statement. It is denied that the petitioner was misled. It is averred that repeated announcements were made at the time of auction on the mike that 8/10 Marias plots were not commercial but were residential and only the name of the scheme was" residential-cum-commercial" because in this particular area plots were being auctioned for both commercial as well as residential sites. Petitioner gave the bid after he understood the instructions announced at the time of auction and which bid was later-on accepted by the competent authority and as a result thereof, allotment letter was issued. It is also stated that only four allottees out of the 27 allottees have filed the writ petitions in this court and 13 out of the remaining 23 have already deposited the amount of 15% after the receipt of the allotment letter without any objection and thus accepted the allotment of the site. It is the further case of the respondents that this clearly goes to show that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the Estate Officer and it is rather the petitioner who is trying to mislead the court by making false averments for getting the refund of 10% as he did not deposit 15% of the amount within 30 days of the allotment letter and consequently it stood forfeited. Merely because the residential-cum-commercial area was mentioned in the category, it did not mean that the plots being auctioned were residential-cum-commercial. As regards the withdrawal of bid offer it is stated that the respondents were not bound to give any reply regarding sending of the telegram or the notice, since the bid made by the petitioner had been accepted by the competent authority and the allotment letter was issued. In the end it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.