CWP No.928 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.928 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 Manorama Tyagi ..... Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, with Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. 1. The challenge laid in this petition is to the order dated 14.10.2009 (P-13). This order has been passed consequent upon directions issued by this Court on 13.07.2009 in CWP No.10138 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for a decision on an application moved for allotment of a plot and in case, she is found eligible she should be so allotted. Else a reasoned order be passed. The claim of the petitioner for the plot applied for of the size 14 marla has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The short issue is that the petitioner, a Class-III employee of the Haryana Government applied for 14 marla plot in Sector-64, Faridabad after depositing earnest money for Rs.1,44,240/- in GSRQ quota. 3. Application was considered for 14 marla plot and she was successful for allotment of plot No.411 Sector 64, Faridabad. This scheme CWP No.928 of 2010 (O&M) -2- meant for providing residential houses to Government servants laid down eligibility conditions as per Clause 12(II) and the brochure, Class I and Class II officers irrespective of pay scales were eligible to apply for 10 marla and above category plots. The remaining regular employees could compete for plots up to 10 marla. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of plot of the size 14 marla and above being Class- III employee. The request has been rejected simplicitor on the finding that she was not entitled to the plot allotted and it was therefore correctly cancelled and amount refunded. 4. On notice being issued of the petition, the respondent – HUDA put in appearance and filed written statement. They did not dispute that the petitioner was science mistress holding a Class-III post. They also do not dispute that the petitioner would be entitled to plot of the size of 10 marla and less. The stand of HUDA is that the impugned order dated 14.10.2009 is a good order and has been passed in the light of the directions issued by this Court in the previous litigation involving the same parties. 5. The petitioner has filed replication to the written statement and has relied upon orders passed by HUDA to applicants who have been allotted plots smaller than the size applied for. One such order dated 24.06.2009 has been placed on record as Annexure P-17. She has for good reason restricted her claim to the size of plot that she was eligible for. From the perusal of the order dated 24.06.2009 we find that it is an order passed in identical circumstances and in the same predicament faced by the petitioner. In the draw of lots, one Subhash Chander was successful in laying hands on a 1 kanal plot. HUDA cancelled the allotment and instead allotted 10 marla plot in Sector-62, Faridabad to Subhash Chander in the CWP No.928 of 2010 (O&M) -3- same reservation quota. 6. After the cancellation of the plot from the hands of the petitioner, plot No.411 Sector-64, Faridabad came to be allotted to one Smt. Renu Jindal. She has filed a short written statement by way of affidavit informing the Court of the predicament she would be in if she is displaced. Her right to allotment has to be protected and we do not touch it, as that allotment is in order. We have however not been shown any distinguishing feature by Mr. Arun Walia, learned counsel for HUDA in the case in hand from that of Subhash Chander. Vide interim order dated 27.01.2011 this Court had granted time to HUDA to obtain instructions with regard to the contents of document enclosed as Annexure P-17 on which reliance has been placed and to consider as to whether the claim of the petitioner can be accommodated. 7. Mr. Walia, learned counsel has sought a decision on merits. We do not see any distinction between the case of the petitioner and the case of Subhash Chander s/o Sh. Kishan Lal. The order in his favour has been passed after cancellation of the allotment. Similarly situated persons deserve to be treated similarly and that is the mandate of Article 14. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties, we allow this writ petition. The respondent-HUDA is directed to allot out of the available plots a 10 marla plot to the petitioner in lieu of plot of 14 marlas for which she was successful in the draw of lots. The needful be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (M.M. KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 07.11.2011 manju