SAROJ SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot an alternative plot under discretionary quota of Chief Minister at Gurgaon. It is claimed that plot has already been allotted to her in the draw of lots held on 24.4.2003. A further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 9.6.2006, issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula-respondent No. 2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot.

(2.) IT is appropriate to mention that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 260 : (1997)2 PLR 7, has struck down the discretionary quota allotment of plots made to few favourites. The matter travelled to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in the case of Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 450 : (2001)9 SCC 550, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) has been held to be prospective as the earlier decision of this Court in the case of S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, (1988) 1 PLR 430, was holding the field. It was held that the parties have regulated their rights in accordance with law as pronounced by the Division Bench in S.R. Dass's case (supra). It is further appropriate to mention that in Harsh Dhingra's case (supra) their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has fixed the cut off date of 23.4.1996 for saving the allotments of discretionary quota plot made earlier to the said date. In other words, all allotments which have been made on or before 23.4.1996 were to be saved but subsequent allotment letters were to be governed by the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) because on 23.4.1996 a comprehensive interim order was passed by this Court restraining the respondent State of Haryana from making allotment of plots under discretionary quota.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that no allotment letter bringing into existence a vested right to the petitioner has ever been issued to him. The plot which was earmarked for the petitioner could not be allotted to her and no allotment letter could be issued, which in fact, stood allotted to one Shri Manmohan Singh i.e. Plot No. 3176, Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Therefore, the respondents have submitted that in the absence of issuance of an allotment letter the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harsh Dhingra (supra), fixing the cut-off date of 23.4.1996.