Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.03.2011 Air Commodore B.S. Gathwala (Retired) ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This is an another case, where the respondent-HUDA seems to have tied itself in circles. At the receiving hand is a retired officer from the Indian Air force. An Officer, who is one looking for a plot, but presently is in circles before the Court. The petitioner had participated in three operations, which the country had to undertake in the years 1962, 1965 and 1971. He must have been looking for peace of life after his retirement, never to know that what was in fate for him as he had to deal with authorities like HUDA. He happened to receive an allotment of a residential plot No.878, Sector 5, Gurgaon, in Defence quota, vide allotment letter dated 16.4.1990. The possession of the plot, however, could Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -2- not be handed over for a long period of 7 years. Faced with this situation, the petitioner approached District Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurgaon for relief. Essential it would be to notice that delay in handing over the possession leads to serious consequence like increase in cost of construction. 7 years is too long period for anyone to wait for possession after allotment. Still one had to approach a legal forum to ask for something, which should be followed in routine. District consumer Forum came to his rescue on 27.10.1997 and directed that other plot No.666, Sector 15, Part I, Gurgaon, be now made in favour of the petitioner earlier plot allotted to him being under litigation. Complying with the order, the HUDA for a change, acted to make a conveyance deed of Plot No.666, Sector 15, Part I, Gurgaon in favour of the petitioner. This plot was allotted to the petitioner on 14.1.1998 in lieu of plot No.878 of Sector 5, Gurgaon, initially allotted to him. The possession of this plot was also handed over to him on 28.1.1998. Conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 2.2.1998. Sale deed was, accordingly, registered in the name of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the respondents for approval of his building plan, he was informed that this plot, transferred in his name by way of proper sale deed, stood allotted to somebody else. The petitioner received a communication dated 24.5.2007 to the effect that plot No.666 Sector 15, Part I, Gurgaon, was a case of double allotment. The petitioner was then told that his name would have been put in the names of draw, which was to be held on 29.5.2007 for allotment of alternative plot. The petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -3- asked to participate in the draw of plots. Obviously, the petitioner would not have accepted this injustice. He still was informed that as a result of mini draw held on 29.5.2007, Plot No.1588 B, Sector 15, Part II, Gurgaon, was allotted to him in lieu of plot No.666, Sector 15, part I, Gurgaon. The petitioner did not accept this allotment. He filed various representations. As a result thereof, the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, thereafter, wrote a letter to Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula on 29.5.2009 giving entire history of allotment of plot No.666, Sector 15, part I, Gurgaon in favour of the petitioner and how it came to be a case of double allotment. The reference is made to the letter written by the Administrator, where he had noted genuine grievance of the petitioner while making out a case of allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of plot No.666, Sector 15, Part I, Gurgaon. Not only that, the Administrator HUDA gave out a list of plots which were available and could be so used for allotment to the petitioner. Really for some undisclosed reasons, this recommendation even made by the Administrator, which would have been fair to balance the equities and perhaps may have shown HUDA in some better light, was not accepted and rather decision was taken to intimate the petitioner that he can now take allotment of plot No.878 Sector 5, Gurgaon, which was initially allotted to him. Strangely, the respondent-HUDA ignored what all had transpired during this prolong period and insisted the petitioner to accept the allotment of plot No.878, Sector 5, Gurgaon. Besides the action is unmindful of the development that is held in this Sector ever since the date of this allotment. The petitioner obviously was left with Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -4- no alternative and had to approach this Court against this unfair action on the part of the respondents. In response to the notice, reply is filed by the respondent- HUDA. Strangely, as per HUDA, there is no cause of action available to the petitioner to file this writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner has been re-allotted the original allotted plot No.878, Sector 5, which was earlier accepted by him. In alternative, the petitioner had been given an option to get refund of his amount deposited with HUDA. It is stated that the petitioner cannot go for his choice to claim allotment of plot. It is also stated that the petitioner has not given any justifiable reason for not accepting the original plot No.878 Sector 5, Guragon. Accordingly, the prayer is made for rejecting the claim as made in the petition. When the case came up for hearing on 12.1.2011, counsel for the HUDA was requested to have instructions if one of the plots as mentioned in Annexure P-20 as recommended by Administrator, be considered for allotment to the petitioner. This approach appeared to be fair to balance the equities, which primarily was on account of the fault on the part of HUDA in not taking proper action in this case. The Administrator HUDA in Annexure P-20 had clearly mentioned that the petitioner had given his consent for allotment of alternative either plot No.600, Sector 27 or Plot No.607, Sector 43, Gurgaon, and had accordingly stated that in order to redress genuine grievance of the petitioner, any of these plot may be allotted to him in lieu of plot No.666 Sector 15, Part I, Guragon. It is also pointed out that list of available plots of 1 kanal was also Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -5- obtained from the Estate Officer-II, Gurgaon and the same was enclosed with this communication. In my view, respondent-HUDA was given chance to make mends. HUDA still has declined to avail opportunity to act in a fair manner. The facts as noticed above would in itself be enough to show how unfairly the petitioner was treated. If the initial allotment, which was done in favour of the petitioner in year 1990 or 1998 had materialized, the petitioner would have been able to construct his house with hardly any expense. The cost of construction has risen phenomenally as compared to 1990. Asking the petitioner to go for same plot, which was allotted in the year 1990, may require the HUDA to be put to some terms. This, accordingly, was put to counsel for respondent-HUDA that if they would be prepared to bear the difference of construction cost. The petitioner has been made to face this situation, only on account of unfair action of HUDA. Such a suggestion would have met only with one obvious answer i.e. 'no' and that indeed is the answer by Mr. Walia. If that be so, why the respondent-HUDA cannot act in a fair manner. I am not able to understand why the recommendation made by the Administrator, HUDA, could not be accepted. The submission that the Chairman has taken this decision would not impress me. Is it that the Chairman can act in an arbitrary manner. In fact, the Administrator seems to be acting in a fair manner to balance the equities. Still the respondent-HUDA has chosen to look other way and have allowed the unfairness to perpetuate. This situation thus cannot be accepted. The submission Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -6- made by Mr. Arun Walia that plot No.666 though had been transferred in the name of the petitioner on basis of a valid document could not be done in favour of the petitioner because of an order passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court may have some justification. This order was regarding cancellation of a discretionary quota plot allotted to one person, was set aside when he had challenged the cancellation of allotment and had succeeded before the Supreme Court. It may be fair that in these circumstances respondent-HUDA was not in a position to give plot No.666, Sector 15, Phase II in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to alternative plot of equal position. What would happen to money spent by the petitioner on execution for having the sale deed executed? If because of the fault of the HUDA, the petitioner has suffered, he certainly cannot be penalized for that. In order to be fair, it was for HUDA now to at least accept the request of the petitioner to allot him a plot which is equally acceptable to him. He is asking for something, which is even recommended by the Administrator, HUDA. The Administrator has clearly stated that plot No.600 Sector 27 and Plot No.601 in Sector 47 are available and can be allotted. These are acceptable to him. The option was given to the respondent-HUDA to allot one of these plots. Still the counsel for the respondent-HUDA has stated that the petitioner can go to the earlier plot. I find this attitude to be unfair. In view of above, I feel that the case is made out for allowing this writ petition. It is pointed out by the counsel for HUDA that perhaps plot No.601 Sector 43 is in some dispute before this Civil Writ Petition No. 14072 of 2010 -7- Court. As on date there is no dispute in regard to plot No.600 Sector 27, at least nothing is pointed out before me. The direction hereby is issued to allot Plot No.600, Sector 27 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is held entitled to a cost, which shall be assessed as Rs.25,000/- . The petitioner would also be at liberty to seek refund of the charges incurred by him in the conveyance deed for plot No.666. The petitioner would also be at liberty to ask for executing a new conveyance deed as per the rates, which he had paid stamp duty in the year 1998. March 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE