IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.887 of 1996 Date of Decision:- 19.01.2011 Bikram Singh ....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Bali, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Neha Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Sidharth Batra, Advocate, for respondent No.2-HUDA. Dr.Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Shireesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. *** Ranjan Gogoi, ACJ. (Oral) The appellant-writ petitioner applied for a plot which was to be allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA') on the basis of draw of lots. He had deposited the requisite amounts to be eligible to participate in the draw. The list of names of persons who were eligible to be considered in the draw of lots, however, did not include the name of the appellant. When the said list was published, the name of one Bikramjit Dhillon-respondent No.3 was included. The appellant did not object to the inclusion of the said name. In fact he wanted a return of the deposits made by him. L.P.A.No.887 of 1996 -2- In the draw of lots which took place in the year 1978, Bikramjit Dhillon was successful and was allotted plot No.209, Sector 10, Panchkula, though she had not made the required deposits which entitled her to participate in the draw. The said fact, however, is disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3. Thereafter, she made all the payments following the allotment made in her favour. She, in fact, came into possession of the plot in the year 1981. Thereafter, the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed contending that against the name of Bikramjit Dhillon it is the name of the appellant which should have been shown and in fact the amount deposited by the appellant was wrongly understood to have been deposited by Bikramjit Dhillon. The learned Single Judge refused any relief to the writ petitioner. Consequently, this appeal has been filed challenging the order passed on 29.4.1996 by the learned Single Judge. From the facts available on record, it would appear that the appellant, at no point of time, contended before the Authority that against the name of Bikramjit Dhillon his name should have been shown. In fact, when the list of eligible persons to participate in the draw was circulated the appellant wanted to withdraw the amount deposited by him. It is only after the allotment was made in favour of Bikramjit Dhillon that the appellant is making a grievance. The above apart, a period of over 30 years has expired in the meantime. Grant of any relief to the petitioner, even on an hypothetical assumption, would require dispossession of the 3rd respondent-Bikramjit Dhillon. The Court, therefore, is of the view that not only the facts of the case and the conduct of the appellant should L.P.A.No.887 of 1996 -3- be held against him but in equity also the relief sought should be declined. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE January 19, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE