IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5229 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 14.09.2011 Daulat Ram .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Daulat Ram, a physically handicapped person, has filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 30.3.2001 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat, whereby allotment of the plot in question to the petitioner was cancelled; and order dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure P-19), whereby the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, has dismissed the appeal filed by the CWP No. 5229 of 2009 -2- petitioner against the aforesaid order. In this case, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the HUDA') issued advertisement for allotment of free hold plots in Sector 24, Panipat, for various categories. Against the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for 6 Marla plot in the category of `physically handicapped' on 2.12.1999. With the application form, he tendered 10% amount, i.e. ` 33,568/-, as earnest money. It is the case of the petitioner that in the draw of lots held by the respondents, he was declared successful and 6 Marla residential plot, bearing plot No. 857 was allotted to him in Sector 24, Panipat, on 1.9.2000. But he was not made aware of the result of draw of lots. The petitioner was neither informed by the HUDA regarding the allotment of the said plot to him nor any allotment letter was sent to him, but later on, when he received a letter from a property dealer that he had been allotted a plot in Sector 24, Panipat, he came to know about the said allotment. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat (respondent No.3), but he was not listened and thereafter, on 12.2.2001, he approached the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No.2) for issuance of the allotment letter and to permit him to deposit 15% amount. The said application was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3. Vide order dated 30.3.2001 (Annexure P-6), respondent No.3 cancelled the allotment of plot No. 857 in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the earnest money. Feeling aggrieved against the said order the petitioner filed an CWP No. 5229 of 2009 -3- appeal before the Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, which has been dismissed vide order dated 21.1.2008. In the written statement, it has been admitted that in the draw of lots, 6 Marla plot, bearing No. 857, was allotted to the petitioner under the category of `physically handicapped'. However, it has been stated that the allotment letter was sent to the petitioner vide registered post on 4.9.2000 at the address given by him in the application form. It is further stated that as per condition No.5 of the allotment letter, the petitioner had to deposit 15% amount within 30 days, but the said amount was not deposited by him, therefore, it was presumed that the petitioner had refused to accept the allotment letter. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner neither received any allotment letter nor refused to accept the allotment letter and the Postman never came to his residence to deliver the allotment letter. Therefore, in order to establish as to whether the allotment letter was ever delivered to the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on July 28, 2011 :- “Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that costs have been paid. The petitioner was, admittedly, successful in a draw of lots in the category of physically challenged applicants. An allotment letter dated 1.9.2000 was allegedly forwarded to the petitioner, by registered post, on 4.9.2000, from the Khadi CWP No. 5229 of 2009 -4- Aashram Post Office, Panipat. A certificate issued by the post office, Annexure R-1, refers to the registered letter sent to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, contends that he did not receive the allotment letter but came to know of the allotment from a property dealer. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application dated 12.2.2001, praying that he should be allowed to deposit the balance price of the plot. The letter was admittedly received in the office but instead of allowing the petitioner to deposit price of the plot, the plot was cancelled by invoking Clauses 4 and 5 of the allotment letter. In order to resolve the controversy with respect to receipt of the allotment letter, the respondents are directed to produce original record relating to the endorsement made by postal authorities on the registered AD and dispatch/receipt register maintained by the HUDA. Adjourned to 14.9.2011.” Today, learned counsel for the HUDA has produced the dispatch register, prepared by the HUDA, in which he is referring to entry No. A 1991, vide which the allotment letter was alleged to have been sent to the petitioner. A perusal of this entry reveals that in the said entry, only name of the petitioner has been given and no other particulars with regard to his address have been mentioned therein. Learned counsel for the HUDA was asked to produce any evidence to show that the allotment letter was duly dispatched on the correct address of the petitioner and the same has been duly delivered to the petitioner under his signatures. The HUDA has not produced any acknowledgment slip or any letter from the postal authorities to show that the said registered letter was delivered to the petitioner. In these CWP No. 5229 of 2009 -5- circumstances, delivery of the said letter to the petitioner cannot be presumed. In the instant case, immediately after coming to know about allotment of the plot in his favour, the petitioner approached the authorities with the request that he has not received the allotment letter and he is ready to accept the same. This fact has not been disputed. It is admitted position that after the cancellation of the plot in question, it has not been re-allotted to any person and is still available and within five months of the allotment the petitioner has approached the authorities. There is no reason why the petitioner will not accept the allotment letter, particularly when he had applied under the category of `physically handicapped' and had deposited 10% as earnest money. The explanation given by the petitioner that he had not received the allotment letter and he came to know about the allotment in his favour, from a property dealer, cannot be said to be unsatisfactory or concocted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the respondents should have issued a fresh allotment letter to the petitioner, and thereafter to accept 15% amount as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. In our opinion, the conduct of the respondents, while rejecting the application of a physically handicapped person, who was successful in the draw of lots, on technical ground, without assigning any valid reason, is unreasonable. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that under the HUDA rules, the respondents have jurisdiction to extend the time in a reasonable case. CWP No. 5229 of 2009 -6- In view of the aforesaid facts, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh allotment letter to the petitioner within two weeks and thereafter, the petitioner be permitted to offer the balance amount within one month and the remaining amount in instalments, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 14, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE