Civil Writ Petition No. 14433 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14433 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.9.2008 Manoj Goyal ....Petitioner. Versus HUDA, Faridabad and another. ....Respondents. CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.Pawan Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for HUDA. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot 6 marla plot in Sector 48, or in any other sector to the petitioner. The petitioner being a handicapped applied for allotment of a plot in the category of 6 marla in Sector 48, Faridabad and earnest money of Rs.58415/- was deposited along with the application. There were total 30 plots of 6 marla size in Sector 48 and, as per brochure published by HUDA, 1 % of the total plots was for the category of handicapped. The grievance of the petitioner is that no plot has been Civil Writ Petition No. 14433 of 2007 [2] allotted to him inspite of the fact that he is handicapped and 1% of the total plots was reserved for the said category. Mr.Pawan Malik, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that petitioner's application form was duly received and earnest money was also accepted by the respondents but his case was not considered inspite of the fact that 1% of the total plots was reserved for the category of handicapped. He also argued that nowhere it is mentioned in the brochure that 1% of the plots would be allotted on the basis of total number of plots only meant for 4 and 6 marlas. It has further been argued that neither application of the petitioner was clubbed with other categories where the number of plot was less than 1% nor the petitioner was given option to switch over to some other sectors. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.2- HUDA, which is on record. Mr. R.S.Longia, learned counsel for HUDA, argued that 30 plots, in all, were for the categories of 4 marla and 6 marla and 1% reservation is for the category of handicapped and, as such, the case of the petitioner could not be considered because out of 30 plots, no plot could be given to handicapped person being 1% reservation. The petitioner applied for allotment of 6 marla size plot in the handicapped category for which 1% plot was reserved and application of the petitioner was not considered in 6 marla category as no plot could be given to a handicapped person as total plots were 30 only. The application of the petitioner was considered in the general category against 6 marla plot and the petitioner remained unsuccessful in the draw. The earnest money of the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No. 14433 of 2007 [3] also refunded to the concerned bank. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and have perused the documents on file and contents of the brochure which is on record. The petitioner is not entitled for consideration of his claim against 6 marla plot as there were only 30 plots and one plot could have been given to the category of handicapped, had there been total 100 plots. Since there were 30 plots, in all, and 1% reservation cannot apply when the plots are only 30. Still application of the petitioner was considered by HUDA in the general category and remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots, hence, was not allotted any plot on the basis of result of draw. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE September 17, 2008. raghav