CR No.7176 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7176 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 4.12.2009 Col.Mahabir Singh Dhankar (Retd.) ..Petitioner. Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others. ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL) This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rohtak has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. It is alleged in the suit that Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (hereinafter to be referred as `HUDA') piloted a special scheme by which residential plots were offered to the personnel of defence and paramilitary forces, retired or working, residing in Haryana in the year 2007, in recognition of the services rendered by them to the nation. The petitioner has alleged that he is a retired defence personnel and is residing at Rohtak. He applied for a plot and was found eligible. Ultimately, in the draw of allotment of one Kanal plot, he stood fifth, therefore, he approached the HUDA for issuance of allotment letter but was CR No.7176 of 2009 -2- asked to submit affidavit to the effect that he or his wife had not been allotted any other plot in Haryana by HUDA in the special defence category available to the defence personnel. The petitioner filed the affidavit and requested for the issuance of the allotment letter but HUDA again asked the plaintiff to submit another affidavit to the effect that he does not own any plot or house in any HUDA Sector in the State of Haryana but he denied to submit such affidavit as he had purchased a plot in HUDA Sector at Rohtak vide registered sale deed dated 24.7.2001 in open market from one Ashok Kumar Garg. Resultantly, HUDA declined to issue allotment letter in his favour and informed him that draw of plot in his favour shall be cancelled. Thus, in the suit prayer has been made for declaring the plaintiff eligible for the allotment of residential plot in HUDA as per the result of draw conducted by the defendants from the special category/quota meant for defence personnel with consequential relief directing HUDA to issue allotment letter. In the written statement, it was pleaded by HUDA that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short `the Act'). It was also averred that a requisite condition was that only those applicants would be eligible to apply who had never been allotted a plot under reserve category in any urban estate developed by HUDA and who does not own a residential plot in any urban estate in Haryana in his/her name or spouse's name or in the name of any dependent family member. The application for temporary injunction much less for mandatory injunction was taken up by both the Courts below and the same were rejected. The learned lower Appellate Court has referred to the provisions of the Brochure which reads as under : (v)“Only those applicants are eligible to apply who have never CR No.7176 of 2009 -3- been allotted a plot under reserved category in any Urban Estate developed by HUDA, and who do not own a residential plot/house in any Urban Estate in Haryana in his/her name or spouse's name or in the name of any dependent family member. An affidavit to this effect attested by Executive Magistrate Ist Class/Notary Public shall accompany the application.” (ii) Applicant is entitled to avail of the benefit of allotment only once in his/her life time in any of the Urban Estates.” On appreciation of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Court below has observed that the petitioner is not eligible to be allotted a plot as he is not entitled to be allotted a plot in view of Clause (v) of the Brochure. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that language of the Brochure by itself is discriminatory because if a person purchases a plot from the open market then he is debarred from being allotted a plot in HUDA on the ground that he belongs to reserved category and if he is allotted a plot in the general category and immediately dispose it of then he is not debarred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am afraid that I am not convinced with the argument that has been raised before me. The conditions stipulated in the Brochure apply to all the applicants and has force of law. In Clause (v) of the Brochure, it is specifically provided that those applicants would be eligible who have never been allotted a plot in the reserved category and who do not own residential plot/house in any Urban Estate in the name of his/her name or spouse's name or in the name of any dependent family member. The use of word `and' in this Clause means that both the conditions are necessary and are required to be fulfilled. In the present case admittedly the plaintiff owns a CR No.7176 of 2009 -4- residential plot in the Urban Estate HUDA, Rohtak before he had applied for the plot in the reserved category, therefore, he is not eligible for the plot for which he has filed the suit. It is the rule of construction of Statutes that in the first instance the grammatical sense of the words is to be adhered to. The words of Statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning and if there is no ambiguity in the words there is no room for construction. In the present case, the word used in the Brochure is `and' and not `or', therefore, it means that both the conditions are to be fulfilled in order to become eligible for the purpose of allotment of plot. Hence, in view of the above, I do not find any error whether of the jurisdiction or on facts in the orders of both the Courts below, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 4.12.2009 Judge Meenu