basis. A team of officers of various Departments headed by Haryana Pollution Control Board was formulated to survey the existing dyeing units located in Panipat Township and as per the list, Annexure P-2, the committee identified 494 existing industrial units for such shifting and recommended to allot 1000 square meters land to the petitioner. Vide advertisement dated 11.7.2007, the applications were invited for the allotment of plots in Dyeing Zone, Sector 29, Part II, Panipat. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted an application along with documents including the earnest money (Annexure P-3 Colly) through Shri Deepak Gupta. Another application was also moved on behalf of the petitioner through one Shri Anil Gupta. However, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) called both the partners for personal hearing on 6.1.2009. Respondent No.3 vide letters dated 5.5.2009/29.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) refunded the earnest money deposited by the petitioner and directed that fresh application be moved after getting the orders regarding ownership from the competent Court of law. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4-Shri Anil Gupta filed civil suit No.297-2011 on 21.8.2009 for declaration. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the said civil suit against which an appeal was filed by respondent No.4. The lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2016 (Annexure P-6/A) also dismissed the appeal. Even the suit filed by respondent No.4 for declaration to the effect that the respondent-HUDA had no right, title or interest in allotting the plot in favour of Shri Deepak Gupta by treating him as proprietor/partner of the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, respondent No.4 sent a letter dated 22.12.2016
