CWP No.1608 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 17.8.2010 Smt.Deepika Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS HUDA through its Estate Officer …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.MK Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) A plot measuring 5.5x22M= 121 Sq. Mtr. Number SCO-2 in Sector 14P, Pkt-A, Hisar was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 6.1.2004 on a free hold basis by the HUDA. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,20,100/- i.e. 10% of the total amount of sale consideration. Another 15% of the total amount of the said plot was to be deposited within 30 days and balance payment of 75% of the total amount was to be deposited in lump-sum without interest within 60 days from the date of the allotment letter or in eight half yearly equal installments as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. It is stated that the petitioner approached the HUDA in the month of CWP No.1608 of 2009 2 July, 2004 and offered to deposit 15% of the amount. The request of the petitioner was, however, not acceded to. The petitioner placed on record copy of the letter dated 23.7.2004 (Annexure P-2). Request of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned letter dated 7.6.2005 whereby allotment made to the petitioner stands cancelled and the 10% of the earnest money has been ordered to be forfeited. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid order before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana. The Revisional authority vide order dated 27.6.2008 (Annexure P-5) rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of cancellation of allotment (Annexure P-3) and the order passed by the Revisional Authority (Annexure P-5). The petitioner during the hearing of the case on 30.7.2010 offered to pay the present price of the plot. Mr.Amit Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, has, however, stated that he has instructions from the respondents that the offer of the petitioner is not acceptable. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that his client is unable to pay the present market price of the plot. The only ground on which the impugned order is sought to be challenged is that similarly situated persons have been granted further time for depositing the money and in case of the petitioner, the same benefit has been denied. As a matter of fact, it is pleaded that there is hostile discrimination with the petitioner. In support of this contention, the petitioner has relied upon another order dated 25.1.2008 passed by the Revisional Authority in case of Shri Pawan Sardana and others (Annexure CWP No.1608 of 2009 3 P-6). It is argued that the petitioner is similarly situated and thus entitled to the similar benefit. I have perused the order passed by the Revisional Authority in case of Shri Pawan Sardana and others. In the said case, definitely, the allottee was allowed to deposit the balance amount after a period of 4 ½ years. The Revisional authority has noticed that HUDA was at fault as the lay out plan of the area was altered after the date of auction by changing their use from Hotel and Restaurant to big showroom. It is under these circumstances that the revisional authority condoned the delay in making the payment in favour of the allottee and imposed a sum of Rs.30,000/- as penalty and directed the deposit of the amount beyond the time fixed. In the present case, there is no such plea. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was prevented on account of any act of omission and commission attributable to the HUDA from depositing the amount. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he could not deposit the amount and no valid explanation has been tendered in the writ petition. The petitioner cannot be equated with the allottees in the order (Annexure P-6). The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 221 wherein it has been held that the action of the statutory authority is required to be weighed on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, no doubt, provides for equal treatment amongst equals. The facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the case of Pawan Sardana (supra) wherein the revisional authority has recorded reasons for allowing the revision petition and permitting the allottees therein to deposit the amount beyond the time prescribed. However, there is CWP No.1608 of 2009 4 no such ground available to the petitioner hence Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted to the present case. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 17.8. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5