IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 20313 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.11.2010. Smt. Shakuntala Devi d/o late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary. --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Man Mohan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents no.1 to 3 to maintain the record of original allotment letter dated 26.2.1973 in respect to Plot No. 219, measuring 500 sq. yards, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Panchkula. It may be useful to briefly notice the factual background. Plot No. 219, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Panchkula was allotted in the name of the petitioner by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula vide memo dated 26.2.1973. The petitioner made a written application dated 13.2.1975 to the Estate Officer for inclusion of the names of her five sons in the allotment along with her. From the application it appears that the petitioner wanted inclusion of the names of her sons in the allotment form as also the order of allotment. The request of the petitioner was accepted vide memo dated 22.4.1975 and names of her sons were included in the allotment letter. Thereafter, the allottees applied for approval of the building plan, which was also approved in the joint name of the allottees as is evident from the memo dated 26.3.1976. It appears that thereafter the CWP. No. 20313 of 2010 -2- relationship between the petitioner and her sons became strained. Petitioner made a representation dated 18.10.2010 to the respondent no.3 to maintain the record as per the original allotment letter. Receiving no response, present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- “ (i) That a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 be issued to maintain the record of Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula in respect of ownership of House No. 219, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana as per original allotment letter of Annexure P-1 in favour of petitioner, ignoring third party claims/rights in favour of non-respondent nos. 4 to 8. (ii) Any other order/s may be passed as is deemed appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.” The total relief claimed by the petitioner is that respondent no.3 be directed to retain the names of petitioner being the original allottees in the record of H.U.D.A. It is alleged that the communication (Annexure P-2) for inclusion of the names of petitioner's sons was obtained by the private respondents from the petitioner under undue pressure. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner requested for inclusion of the names of her sons in the allotment letter as far back as in the year 1975. It is more than 35 years. It is only in October, 2010 that for the first time the petitioner approached the respondents for allegedly annulling the allotment and exclusion of names of her sons. It is further contended that the inclusion of the names of petitioner's sons was in contravention to the condition of allotment which inter alia prohibited the transfer by any mode without the sanction/approval of the Chief Administrator. It is also contended that fragmentation is impermissible under the conditions of CWP. No. 20313 of 2010 -3- allotment. Reference is made to conditions no. 13 and 14 of the allotment letter (Annexure P-1). Clause 13 prohibits fragmentation of the plot. In so far the violation of clause 13 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that there has been a fragmentation of the plot. To the contrary Annexure P-4 is a document which inter alia deals with the joint allotment in the name of petitioner and her sons. No fragmentation has been asked for nor prescribed. As far the violation of clause 14 is concerned, there has not been any transfer by the petitioner nor it is her case that she has transferred the property. She only wanted allotment in the joint name. In any case after a period of more than 35 years petitioner cannot be permitted to plead such kind of violation. The final contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy. It is contended that Section 50 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 50 reads as under:- “ 50. Finality orders and bar of jurisdiction of civil courts:- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, every order passed or direction issued by the State Govt. or order passed or notice issued by the Authority or its officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. (2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulations made there under.” Jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under the Act. The entire case of the petitioner is that her application for inclusion of CWP. No. 20313 of 2010 -4- names of her sons was under undue pressure. This is a matter which involves disputed questions of facts and writ court is unable to decide this matter particularly when this petition has been filed after more than 35 years. The petitioner accepted the joint allotment for a period of more than 35 years. Not only that even the petitioner has not challenged Annexure P-4, the memo whereby the allotment was made in the joint names of petitioner and private respondents. The only prayer is to maintain the original record of allotment without challenging Annexure P-4. I do not find it is a fit case, where interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is warranted. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 15.11.2010. lucky