Dismissed

Jai Bhagwan v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012CWP/10098/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four writ petitions filed by oustees challenging the rejection of their claims for plot allotment. The Court held that the petitioners failed to deposit the mandatory 10% earnest money as per the policy and advertisement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed, and it was noted that petitioners may apply in subsequent advertisements.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of decision: January 19, 2012

¶3

C.W.P. No. 10098 of 2011

¶4

Jai Bhagwan .. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .. Respondents

¶7

C.W.P. No. 10133 of 2011

¶8

Ram Kumar .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .. Respondents

¶11

C.W.P. No. 10196 of 2011

¶12

Mam Kaur .. Petitioner

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .. Respondents

¶15

C.W.P. No. 10247 of 2011

¶16

Ram Mehar .. Petitioner

¶17

Vs.

¶18

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .. Respondents

¶19

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶20

Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶21

Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent(s).

¶22

Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)

¶23

This order shall dispose of aforementioned four writ petitions challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 - Estate Officer, Sonepat, whereby the claim of the petitioner(s) for allotment of plot as an oustee was declined. However, for facility of reference, the facts are being taken from

¶24

C.W.P. No. 10098 of 2011

¶25

-2-

¶26

CWP No.10098 of 2011.

¶27

The land measuring 15 kanals 9 marlas situated at village Raipur, District Sonepat, owned by the petitioner, was acquired vide notification dated 9.11.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of Sectors 7 and 8 part of Sonepat. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 01.01.2000 for allotment of plots to various categories in Sectors 7 and 8, Sonepat including inviting applications from the oustees. The petitioner applied for an allotment of plot, but without earnest money. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court wherein the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority was directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner. In terms of the said direction, the Estate Officer has passed a speaking order on 4.7.2007, copy attached as Annexure P/3.

¶28

The said order passed by the Estate Officer has been challenged in the present writ petition filed after more than three years and ten months. Apart from the fact that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, we do not find any merit in the petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court in LPA No.2070 of 2011 titled “Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Layak Ram Singh” (decided on 15.11.2011), wherein the appeal of Haryana Urban Development Authority, arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.8594 of 2010, was dismissed. The learned Division Bench has noticed that the claim of the writ petition was rejected on the ground that the directions given by the earlier Division Bench had attained finality wherein it was observed that an intimation was required to

¶30

C.W.P. No. 10098 of 2011

¶31

-3-

¶32

be sent to an oustee regarding deposit of 10% of the price.

¶33

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the policy dated 12.3.1993 to contend that the earnest money is not required to be deposited by an oustee and that the advertisement Annexure P/1 is not clear and categorical in respect of the deposit of the earnest money by the oustees. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot was wrongly rejected on the ground that he has not deposited the earnest money.

¶34

We do not find any merit in the argument for the reason that in the policy dated 12.3.1993, there is a specific condition that the oustee has to deposit 10% of the cost of the plot as and when sector scheme is to be floated. The relevant clause from the policy reads as under :-

¶35

“ Mode of Allotment

¶36

After the claim have been finally accepted by the Competent Authority, the applicants claim will be kept in a live register and applicants shall basked to deposit the earnest money equivalent to 10% of the cost of the plot as and when sector scheme is to be floated. The allotment of plots to such claimants shall normally be done prior to or at-least along with other applicants, who have been successful in the draw of lots after the floatation of the scheme. ......”

¶37

The said clause has not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench earlier in Layak Ram Singh's case (supra) . Still further, in the advertisement Annexure P/1 there is a categorical assertion that 10% of the total cost is payable with the application, whereas 15% is to be paid within one month and the remaining in six annual installments. The petitioner had applied in terms of the advertisement but without earnest money, therefore, he cannot claim right of the allotment of the plot in terms of the said advertisement. We don't find any illegality in the process of allotment, which may warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of

¶38

C.W.P. No. 10098 of 2011

¶39

-4-

¶40

this court. Thus, all the petitions being without any merit, are dismissed. However, since the petitioner(s) are an oustee, it is open to the

¶41

petitioner(s) to apply for a plot in a subsequent advertisement in accordance with his entitlement and availability of the plots.

¶42

(Hemant Gupta) Judge January 19, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak/vimal Judge

Jai Bhagwan v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bhagwan v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepan Garg Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Noordeen & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Shinder Singh and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Hisar Ex. Naval Personnel Welfare Society Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ram Avad Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.