IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1745 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2011 Manju Wahi …Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 20.4.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner-appellant is not entitled to allotment of industrial plot because she had failed to fulfill the basic requirement of preparing the detailed drawings. The excuse put forward by her that she was not furnished a copy of the zoning regulations/zoning plan, has been disbelieved by the learned Single Judge by recording a finding in the following para of the judgment: “ ……However, this plea of hers that she had not been supplied the zoning plan/demarcation plan earlier, is not substantiated in view of the letter dated 2.6.1984 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Estate Officer, Karnal, alongwith which a copy each of demarcation plan and zoning plan, was sent to the petitioner. It appears that LPA No. 1745 of 2011 (O&M) 2 instead of completing the formalities, the petitioner had been putting off the matter on false pretext of non supplying of the copies of the demarcation and zoning plans. The objection of the petitioner that the registered letter (Annexure R-1) could not have been received by her as her address was mentioned to be that of Post Box number and Post Offices do not accept any such letters where the addressee of registered letter is shown/indicated by Post Box Number instead of regular address, is unsustainable. The petitioner had herself brought on record copies of letter dated 16.3.1983 (Annexure P-1) and of letter dated 16.5.1985 (Annexure P-2) sent to her by the Chief Administrator, HUDA wherein she was again described by Post Box Number. If she could receive letters (Annexure P-1 and P-2) despite the fact that they referred to her address as Post Box No., she cannot validly allege that letter dated 2.6.1984 (Annexure R-1) vide which a copy each of demarcation plan and zoning plan was sent to her, had not been received by her.” 2. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the basic condition laid down in the offer of allotment asking her to get drawings of her unit prepared from an architect registered with HUDA and then present for approval, has not been fulfilled. Consequently, she has forfeited her claim to the allotment of industrial plot. 3. We have heard learned counsel at some length. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as extracted in the LPA No. 1745 of 2011 (O&M) 3 preceding paras of this order do not leave any manner of doubt that the petitioner-appellant has lost her right to the allotment of an industrial plot. The basic object of allotment of an industrial plot is to achieve industrialisation in the State. That object is defeated as there was no manifestation or plans of the petitioner-appellant to develop any industry on the aforesaid plot. There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (GURDEV GURDEV GURDEV GURDEV SINGH SINGH SINGH SINGH) September September September September 21, 2010 , 2010 , 2010 , 2010 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor