The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the HUDA to allot possession of an industrial plot. The court held that plots require allotment via public advertisement and that no legally enforceable right existed as no allotment letter was issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.12348 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12348 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 17.02.2012
Sunit Seth
....Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has sought writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to allot and handover the possession of Industrial Plot in Sector 37, Part-II, Gurgaon or any other alternative plot measuring 2100 sq. meters in Gurgaon.
It is asserted by the petitioner that he deposited earnest money of Rs.7,00,000/- in the month of February, 2004 for allotment of Industrial Plot. The petitioner claims that plot Nos. 545 and 546 in Sector 37, Part-II, Gurgaon, were in fact, allotted to him. However, instead of that industrial plot No. 757, Sector 37, Part-II, Gurgaon, was allotted to him. But still the possession was not handed over of the plot allotted, therefore, he sought intervention of this Court.
Earlier, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6720 of 2007 before this Court, which was disposed of on 22.09.2008 with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for
Civil Writ Petition No.12348 of 2009 (O&M) 2
allotment of plot within a period of four weeks. In terms of the said direction, an order (Annexure P-8) has been passed on 23.01.2009.
In the written statement, filed, it is asserted that the petitioner was interviewed by the Plot Allotment Committee and recommendation was made for allotment of plot, but no letter of allotment was issued in respect of plot Nos. 545 and 546, Sector 37, Part-II, Gurgaon or in respect of plot No. 757, Sector 37 Part-II, Gurgaon. The amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, deposited by the petitioner, was refunded vide cheque dated 31.07.2007 along with interest.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the petitioner has absolutely no cause for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The application for allotment of plot was submitted by the petitioner not in response to any advertisement. The plots by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA') can be allotted only on the basis of public advertisement and not on the basis of application submitted with the HUDA without giving opportunity to all the eligible candidates to apply and to be considered for allotment of plot. Since there is no public advertisement, the petitioner cannot claim any right of allotment. Still further, no letter of allotment was ever issued.
Therefore, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right, for which he can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL) February 17, 2012 JUDGE ajp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a citizen can invoke writ jurisdiction to demand allotment of an industrial plot without a public advertisement and without a letter of allotment being issued.
Sunit Seth
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
