IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10021 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.04.2010 Ram Avtar and others ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4. Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioners, who are co-owners with the 5th respondent and who were entitled to an allotment of a plot in an oustee policy issued by HUDA has a grievance that the allotment was made only in the name of one of the co-sharer of the property acquired, namely of the 5th respondent. The petitioners admit that they had given No Objection Certificate to the 5th respondent, co-owner, to make a claim for allotment but they had resiled from such a no objection and intimated to the Estate Officer, HUDA by a letter dated 02.08.2006 stating that NOC submitted Civil Writ Petition No.10021 of 2009 - 2 - by the 5th respondent might not be considered valid and if only the matter was resolved between the family members and a fresh NOC submitted, allotment could be made. It appears, the Estate Officer also issued a notice to the 5th respondent on 21.06.2007 that in view of a withdrawal of NOC from the petitioners, the 5th respondent was required to submit a fresh NOC within a period of 7 days on the pain of a proposal for allotment in favour of the 5th respondent to be withdrawn and a fresh allotment to be made in favour of all the co-owners. The grievance of the petitioner is, notwithstanding the letter dated 21.06.2007, the HUDA proceeded to make an allotment in favour of the 5th respondent after securing a letter of indemnity from him. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the HUDA contends that the rules only stipulated that an allotment could be made in respect of only one plot for all co-sharers and if there were more than one claimant, the No Objection Certificate would be required to be given to a person in whose favour allotment is sought or else, the allotment would be done in the names of all the co-sharers. In this case, admittedly consent had been given by the petitioners and the issue is whether the petitioners subsequently resiled from the same could be a ground to challenge a decision by HUDA to make the allotment in favour of the 5th respondent only. The 5th respondent would contend that once the No Objection Certificate had been issued, the petitioners had no right to resile from the same and HUDA itself did not have an authority to call upon the 5th respondent to secure a fresh NOC. HUDA ought to have simply rejected the petitioners' request and the notice which the Estate Civil Writ Petition No.10021 of 2009 - 3- Officer had issued subsequently on 21.06.2007 calling upon him to obtain a fresh NOC had no legal effect. 3. In view of the conflict in claims between the petitioners and the 5th respondent, I do not propose to go into the issue any more than affirming the allotment already made in favour of the 5th respondent, leaving it open for the petitioner to seek for an adjudication, if so desired, that such an allotment shall go to the benefit of the petitioners also and it shall be possible for the 5th respondent also to defend that the allotment was personal to him and No Objection Certificate which was already given was not capable of being resiled. Such an adjudication would require an examination of the circumstances under which the NOC was given and whether the NOC was supported by any consideration or not. The issue whether the first NOC could have been resiled or not would further require factual consideration which this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 would loathe to do. 4. Reserving a right to the petitioners or the 5th respondent to seek an appropriate adjudication inter se before a Civil Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.04.2010 sanjeev