CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2230 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 3, 2011 The Ashiana Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Panchkula ….Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2-HUDA. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The Ashiana Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Panchkula, has approached this Court through the present writ petition impugning the order dated 25.1.1991 passed by the Chief Administrator HUDA. The prayer of the petitioner-society for allotment of land under a Group Housing Scheme has been declined through the impugned order. This prayer was made by the petitioner-society, 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 of 1991 which was statedly registered in the year 1983. The petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner-society is a cooperative society, which was registered on 16.3.1983. The objects of the society are also disclosed in the writ petition and so also the eligibility of the members constituted the society. The main purpose of the petitioner-society was to look after the welfare of the members and to acquire or lease land for development and construction of residential houses/flats for giving to its members. An advertisement appeared in various newspapers in the year 1983. The Cooperative Group Housing Societies, which were registered upto 31.3.1983 could apply for allotment of land in different towns of the State of Haryana. The Cooperative Group Housing Scheme was announced exclusively for Cooperative Group Housing Societies like the petitioner-society. The petitioner-society, accordingly, submitted an application to respondent No.2 on 4.4.1983 for allotment of a site under the said scheme. The price of the land as fixed was so high, which necessitated various Cooperative Group Housing Societies to make a request to the authorities to refix the price of the land. Subsequently, on 1.3.1984 respondent No.2 intimated the President of the Action Committee that a Committee had been constituted to go into the details of price fixation and as soon as the final decision as taken about the revised price of land would be conveyed. A letter dated 20.4.1985 was issued by respondent No.2 to complete the formalities or to send the documents within15 days, if the members of the petitioner-society and all other such 2 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 of 1991 societies were desirous of being allotted the land. The petitioner- society instead approached respondent No.2 to intimate the price per acre refixed by the respondents. As intimated, the price fixed for the land to be allotted was `12.20 lacs per acre. The petitioner-society, thereafter, made representation to know the fate of cases where the issue of refixation of the price was under consideration. The grievance is that the petitioner-society was kept in dark about it and in the meantime, a new scheme known as Group Housing Scheme, 1990 was announced. As per the new scheme, the societies consisting of Government servants, employees of the Boards, Corporations, Authorities and Public Sector Undertakings could only apply for group housing. Other societies, like the petitioner-society, were excluded from applying in the new scheme. This was so advertised in the newspaper (Hindustan Times) on 3.9.1990. Aggrieved against this action debarring the petitioner-society from making application, the petitioner-society filed a representation. Thereafter, the petitioner- society also filed a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation and legal notice, which was served, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. Three months period was given to the respondents to pass the order. The petitioner-society was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 25.1.1991. Alleging that this order is totally biased, the petitioner- society has filed the present writ petition. 3 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 of 1991 The respondent-HUDA has filed reply and has taken a stand as is reflected in the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the main prayer made by the petitioner was that their case be considered under the 1983 Scheme. This prayer of the petitioner was declined. The petitioner-society thus filed CWP No.13647 of 1990. It is noted that in 1983 Scheme, societies were asked through public notice to submit their applications on prescribed proforma and to complete various other formalities. In addition, societies were also required to deposit earnest money. In fact, the petitioner-society was specifically asked through letter dated 20.4.1985 to complete all the formalities within 15 days. Still the petitioner-society failed to do so and did not complete the formalities upto 31.12.1985 i.e. the last date for this purpose under the old scheme. With effect from this date the claims floated under 1983 Scheme were closed. It is, accordingly, urged that it is not possible to allot the land to the petitioner-society. As per the changed policy, the land could only be allotted to those societies, which were consisting of Government employees or employees of the Private Sector Undertakings etc. Since there was no information to the Chief Administrator HUDA if the petitioner society is covered by 1990 Scheme, the prayer made was rejected. I have heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for HUDA submits that the petitioner- society had failed to complete the formalities and even had not submitted any earnest money. As such, their claim for allotment of land could not be considered. Counsel for the petitioner-society has 4 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 of 1991 not been able to show any thing from record that when it is asked to complete the formalities the society has done so. Once the petitioner-society had failed to complete the formalities in time and during this period new scheme came into effect, claim of the petitioner under 1983 Scheme certainly cannot be considered. Nothing otherwise is now left in this claim at this belated stage. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. August 03, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE 5