IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 489 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009. Gulshan Rai --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Senior Town Planner in the office of Director, Haryana Local Bodies, Chandigarh, order dated 27.6.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak (Annexure P-9), order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak (Annexure P-10) and order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak (Annexure P-11). Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. Haryana vide communication dated 25.5.1982 addressed to the Administrator, Municipal Council, Rohtak proposed to allot the land to the petitioner out of the 90 square yards of 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 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 CWP. No. 489 of 2009 -2- was improper. The petitioner filed CWP No. 8299 of 1988 before this Court, challenging the aforesaid cancellation order. This Court vide its judgement 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 afresh 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 also observed that, if, the Municipal Council, Rohtak has passed any order or resolution with respect to the land in question to lease it out or to sell it, the same may be set aside. Consequently, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak made inquiry from the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak 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 CWP. No. 489 of 2009 -3- that the 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 Deputy 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. Based upon the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner the Executive Officer also passed order (Annexure P-10) refusing to allot the land to the petitioner. A similar order was passed by the Executive Officer dated 20.3.2008 declining the request of the petitioner to allot the land. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition, challenging the aforementioned impugned orders/letters whereby the request of the petitioner to allot the land has been declined. Mr. Avnish Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on the basis of the judgement of the Division Bench the cancellation order dated 7.7.1988 having been cancelled the respondents are under an obligation to allot the land to the petitioner. This argument, though appears to be attractive but is totally falacious looking to the sequence of the events and the legal aspects. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon the letter dated 25.5.1982 from the Commissioner & Secretary to the Administrator, Municipal Council, proposing to allot the land. Except this communication, there is no material on record to indicate that at any stage the proposal to allot the land to the petitioner was CWP. No. 489 of 2009 -4- materialized or any consequential allotment was made. Admittedly, the proposal was only intention to allot and no actual allotment was ever made. No right is created or vested with the petitioner to ask for the allotment of the land. It is a public property all derizous and eligible persons have right to apply. Petitioner has no preferential right to seek allotment of such a property. I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 15.7.2009 lucky