The Court dismissed writ petitions seeking allotment of plots for marble dealers in Sector 21-C, Faridabad. It held that the cut-off date in the HUDA advertisement was binding and could not be altered, rejecting claims based on a prior judgment that did not establish a broad legal principle.
No relief; writ petitions dismissed.
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.
C.W.P.No.5183 of 2010 & C.W.P.No.5185 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 11.01.2012
C.W.P.No.5183 of 2010
Rohan Khanna
...Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority & others
...Respondents
C.W.P.No.5185 of 2010
Tilak Raj Khanna
...Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petiitons filed by son and the father in respect of allotment of site in Sector 21-C, Faridabad carved out to rehabilitate the marble dealers in the city of Faridabad.
The petitiones have earlier filed civil suits claiming a decree for mandatory injunction so as to consider the petitioners for allotment of plot in marble market as per the scheme of allotment floated by Haryana Urban Development Authority "for short 'the HUDA'". During the pendency of the said suit, an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in another case titled as "Natural Marbles Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another" (CWP No.4305 of 2005 decided on 20.04.2006), whereby the HUDA was directed to consider the claim of the said petitioner. It was observed that merely because the petitioner had applied after cut-off date, would not be a
C.W.P.No.5183 of 2010 & C.W.P.No.5185 of 2010
2
ground to dislodge him.
The civil suit filed by the petitioners was disposed of on a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners with a direction to the defendants to reconsider the case of the plaintiffs after providing an effeictive opportunity of personal hearing. In terms of the directions issued by the Civil Court, the Estate Officer, Faridabad has passed a detailed order on 13.1.2010. It has been observed that a decision was taken to allot marble shops/sites in Sector 21-C, Faridabad to all the eligible 61 members, who have deposited 10% earnesh money alongwith their applications and affidavits and that no extension from 09.03.2001 was granted. Subsequently, 60 traders were declared successful in draw of lots and were issued allotment letters. But the petitioners have submitted earnest money in terms of the conditions of allotment in November, 2001, which is beyound the period fixed in the advertisement.
We find that the reasoning given by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad to reject the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plot is justified. The petitioners will get the right of consideration only if they have applied for plot alongwith earnest money within the time granted in terms of the advertisement. Having failed to do so, the petititioners cannot claim allotment of site carved out as a process of rehabilitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Natural Marbles case (supra) , wherein it was observed that the application after cut-off date would not be a ground to dislodge the petitioner. It is contended that such order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the Special Leave Peititon was dismissed.
We do not find that the direction issued in Natural Marbles case (supra) laid down any principle of law that any application, which is filed after cut-off date has to be considered. It was in the aforesaid case, this Court has
C.W.P.No.5183 of 2010 & C.W.P.No.5185 of 2010
3
directed the HUDA to consider the application, even if the same was submitted after cut-off date. Since the plots are limited and applications are invited in terms of the public advertisment, cut-off date fixed in such advertisement cannot be altered by an order passed by the Court.
In view thereof, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, which may warrant any interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 11.01.2012 (A.N.JINDAL) Vimal JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can alter the cut-off date fixed in a public advertisement to consider allotment applications filed thereafter.
Whether a previous judgment directing HUDA to consider an application after the cut-off date lays down a binding principle of law for all cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Natural Marbles Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and anotherDistinguished¶27
Natural Marbles Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another, CWP No.4305 of 2005, decided on 20.04.2006
Rohan Khanna
Tilak Raj Khanna
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
