LPA No.1167 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1167 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.03.2010 Gulshan Rai ............Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others . .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. N. C. Kinra, Advocate for the appellant. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. By way of present LPA, petitioner/appellant is assailing the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by Senior Town Planner, Haryana, Chandigarh, order dated 27.6.2007 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, order dated 13.7.2007 passed by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak and order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak, refusing to allot the land to the petitioner/appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that Municipal Council, Rohtak proposed to allot to the petitioner the land lying in front of the house of Sarvshri Devi Dayal Ram Kishan for 10 years in accordance with Govt. Instructions dated 1.7.1981, after leaving land LPA No.1167 of 2009 (O&M) -2- for the road. This proposal came to be cancelled by the Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana vide letter dated 7.7.1988, saying that the proposal to allot land by the municipality to the petitioner was improper. The petitioner filed CWP No. 8299 of 1988 before this Court, challenging the aforesaid cancellation order. This Court vide its judgment dated 19.11.1990 quashed the letter dated 7.7.1988 and directed the Municipal Committee, Rohtak to execute the lease deed of the land in favour of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which it was approved to be leased out vide order dated 25.5.1982. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by one Som Parkash Bawa and Pushpa Devi in LPA No. 187 of 1991. The Hon'ble Division Bench partially allowed the appeal while maintaining the direction of learned Single Judge, who quashed the letter dated 7.7.1988. Other observations of the learned Single Judge for allotment of land to the petitioner were set aside. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak, who on consideration of the issue passed the order dated 18.4.2007 reiterated to allot the land and expressed no objection on behalf of the Municipal Council, Rohtak subject to the condition that the petitioner will obtain prior permission of the State Govt. The Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana vide the impugned letter dated 28.5.2007 rejected the request of the petitioner for allotment of land, same being in contravention to the Haryana Municipal Council Properties and State Properties Manangement Rules, 2007. It was further observed by the Director that if, the Municipal Council, Rohtak has passed any order or resolution with LPA No.1167 of 2009 (O&M) -3- respect to the land in question to lease it out or to sell it, and the same may be set aside. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak inquired the matter as to whether any resolution has been passed by the Municipal Council to lease out or sell the land to the petitioner. The Executive Officer vide its letter dated 20.6.2007 communicated to the Deputy Commissioner that Municipal Council has not passed any resolution and there is no proposal to pass any resolution for the lease of the land in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid communication the Dep- uty Commissioner passed order dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure P-9), whereby the order of the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, proposing to allot the land to the petitioner has been set aside being not in accordance with the Haryana Municipal Council Properties and State Properties Management Rules, 2007. 4. The order declining to allot the land to the petitioner was put under challenge by way of writ petition bearing CWP No.489 of 2009 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide im- pugned judgment dated 16.7.2009. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/appel- lant and perused the record. LPA No.1167 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently ar- gued that once the proposal was passed by the Municipal Council to allot the land in favour of the petitioner, then Municipal Council is duty bound to make allotment in favour of the petitioner. He further argued that cancellation of proposal vide order dated 7.7.1988 was since quashed in CWP No.8299 of 1988, hence, allotment has to be made in favour of the petitioner. 7. Undisputedly, after the order of this Court in LPA No.187 of 1991, Executive Officer, Rohtak passed order dated 18.4.2007 recording no objection on behalf of the Municipal Council, Rohtak on the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner subject to the con- dition that the petitioner will obtain prior permission of the State Gov- ernment. Hence, prior permission of the State Government was man- datory before any allotment. Undisputedly, The Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, vide impugned letter dated 28.5.2007 rejected the request of the petitioner for allotment of the land, saying the same being in contravention to the Haryana Municipal Council Properties and State Properties Management Rules, 2007. 8. It is settled position of law that proposal to make allotment does not create any right in favour of the prospective allottee. Since, proposal has already been rejected by the State Government, hence, petitioner has no legal right to claim allotment. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. LPA No.1167 of 2009 (O&M) -5- (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 02.03.2010 JUDGE ashish