IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15207 of 2007. Date of Decision: 11th May, 2009. Harsh Vardhan Mittal ....Petitioner through Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 20.9.2007 [Annexure P-1] whereby location of Plot No. 322-B, Sector 38, Gurgaon measuring 171 square meter, re-allotted to him on 28.2.2005 has been changed within the same sector and on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner's case is that since Plot No. 322-B in Sector 38, Gurgaon is very much available at the spot, though re- numbered in the revised zoning plan, he is entitled to retain possession of the said plot, now re-numbered as Plot No. 324-P, Sector 38, Gurgaon. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their counter-affidavit. It is explained that plot No. 322-B was originally allotted on 14.12.1999 to Smt. Sangita Tyagi, who transferred the same to one Anupam Keshibi and his wife Smt. Hem Lata Keshibi. The plot was further sold to one Bhagwan Dass Gupta vide re-allotment letter dated 11.5.2004 and its possession was also offered to the said re-allottee vide Memo dated 6.8.2004. The petitioner thereafter purchased the subject plot from Bhagwan Dass Gupta and obtained its physical possession on 14.7.2005 [Annexure P-7]. It was not a corner plot. Further admitted facts are that Plot No. 324-P, Sector 38, Gurgaon was allotted to one Col. S.Sharma on 15.10.2003, from whom the same was purchased by Smt. Surbhi Jain and Sumitra Devi, in whose favour it was re-allotted on 8.1.2007. The expression 'P' denotes 'preferential', i.e., a corner plot. It, thus, clearly emerges that while Plot No. 322-B purchased by the petitioner from Bhagwan Dass Gupta was not a corner plot, plot No. 324-P which Smt. Surbhi Jain and Sumitra Devi have purchased, is a corner plot from the very inception. It is stated that due to high-tension wire passing over- head a part of Sector 38, Gurgaon, the zoning plan has been revised as no construction can be raised under these wires and resultantly, location of some of the plots in that pocket has changed including of the corner plot No. 324-P which has been relocated at the site where originally Plot No. 322-B [owned by the petitioner] was located. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the preferential Plot [corner plot] No. 324-P deserves to be allotted to its original allottee – Smt. Surbhi Jain and Sumitra Devi and/or to the petitioner to whom Plot No. 322-B has been offered at a slightly different place but within the same pocket of the same Sector? Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that as against the petitioner to whom a preferential [corner] plot was never allotted, the allottee of Plot No. 324-P, who got allotted and paid higher price for a corner plot, has a preferential right to seek, continue and retain the said corner plot. Neither there are two corner plots available nor the petitioner has got any indefeasible right in law or equity to seek allotment of a corner plot. This, however, does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to a suitable plot of equivalent size in the same Sector. In other words, the petitioner is also entitled to be allotted a plot of the same size in the same sector which should be free from any type of disadvantages. However, due to change in the zoning plan for the reasons beyond the control of the official respondents, the petitioner can not be claim undue advantage like allotment of a corner plot. The petitioner's contention that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to him is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the principles of natural justice can not be read into each and every administrative action. Since the right of the petitioner to retain a plot measuring 171 square yards in the same sector has not been adversely affected, in my considered view, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner can not draw much benefit from the interim order dated 23.10.2008 as at that time the factum of availability of only one corner plot and preferential right of existing allottee of the corner plot who had paid a higher price for such allotment, were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bench. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allot another plot to the petitioner of same size in the same sector and on the same terms and conditions. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. May 11, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE