RSA No. 3040 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3040 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 12 , 2009 Yogesh Bajaj ......Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.J.P.Bhatt, Advocate for respodents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is entitled for allotment of plot No. 134, Sector 21, Industrial Area, Bhiwani ; for cancellation of the allotment of that plot to respondent No.3 and in the alternative for a direction to respondents no. 1 and 2 to allot plot Nos. 137 or 138 in Sector RSA No. 3040 of 2007 (O&M) 2 21, Industrial Area or any other plot in lieu of his entitlement for above mentioned plot No. 134. It needs to be mentioned here that the learned trial Court had directed that in case the plaintiff is allotted any other plot in Sector 21, the allotment of Plot No. 134 in favour of respondent No.3 would subsist but in the absence thereof the said allotment would be cancelled and the plot would be liable to be allotted to the appellant. As mentioned above learned lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. Learned counsel has proposed the following questions:- i) Whether the judgment and decree of reversal passed by learned lower Appellate Court is tenable in law? ii)Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has correctly and legally reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge? iii)Whether respondent HUDA is estopped from deviating the procedure for allotment of industrial plot, which was mentioned in the brochure Ex.D1? Main argument of learned counsel for the appellant centers around question No. (iii). Learned counsel has argued that as per the brochure Ex.D1 the applications were to be considered on monthly basis. He further argued that admittedly the appellant had applied on 30.11.2000 while the respondent No.3 had applied in December, 2000. However, the case of the appellant was not considered while that of the respondents was considered and the plot No. 134 for which the appellant had applied was wrongly allotted to the respondents. Learned counsel has argued that respondents No. 1 and 2-HUDA could not violate their own brochure and RSA No. 3040 of 2007 (O&M) 3 give an unfair advantage to the respondent No.3 whose case could not be considered till the case of the appellant was duly considered by the selection committee. He thus argued that the decree of the trial court being fair and equitable should be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court and particularly relied upon its para 14 which is as under:- “As far as the observation by the trial court to allot any other vacant plot in Sector 21 is concerned, it again is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to give this kind of relief, where the criteria of eligibility on the anvil of the requirement of the selection committee has to be considered as an indispensable cog in the procedure for allotment, which was adhered in the case of the appellant M/s R.K. Ispat, but not in the case of the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is totally erroneous and the findings being infirm and without any legal basis result in setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree.” In my opinion the views of both the Courts are too extreme. In view of the admitted fact that the case of the appellant was not considered prior to the case of respondent No.3 it must be held that there was a violation of the brochure. In the circumstances the interference by the Civil Court was warranted, though not to the extent of entitling the appellant for allotment. In my opinion the correct position in law would be to direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the appellant for allotment of any industrial plot as per the terms of the brochure Ex.D1 since, even till date the deposit RSA No. 3040 of 2007 (O&M) 4 of Rs. 40,000/- odd made by the appellant has been retained by respondents No. 1 and 2. In case no plot is available in Bhiwani option may be given to the appellant to be considered for any other plot in the nearby Industrial Estate. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the deposit the price of any such plot which may be allotted to the appellant should be frozen at 2000 prices, however, cannot be accepted. In case the appellant is found entitled for allotment by the Selection Committee, he would have to pay the current market rate. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 would be liable to credit interest to the appellant at the rate equivalent to the rate which they charge for overdue payments. In the circumstances question No. (iii) is decided in favour of the appellant while in response to questions No. (i) and (ii) the order of the learned lower Appellate Court has been suitably modified. This appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 12, 2009 sunita