CWP No.4846 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 8.10.2010 Rajiv Mehrotra ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Amit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Arvun Kundal, Advocate for Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr.RD Sharma, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.3 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner applied for allotment of Industrial Plot in the Industrial Area, Gurgaon in response to the Brochure issued by the respondents and also deposited earnest money being 10% of the total cost of the plot, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Brochure. The petitioner was called for interview which was scheduled to be held on CWP No.4846 of 2005 (O&M) 2 19.7.2004, vide letter dated 14.7.2004 (Annexure P-3). On the basis of the interview, the Allotment Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for allotment of plot measuring 220 square meters in Sector 18, Industrial Area at Gurgaon. The plot was to be allotted on the basis of draw of lots. The petitioner was asked vide letter dated 30.7.2004 to give his consent for draw of lots and also for the charging of the current rate. The petitioner vide his letter dated 4.8.2004 conveyed his consent for the draw of lots as also to pay current rates of allotment and the difference in case of increase in rates. On the basis of draw of lots, Plot No.64-AP, Sector 18, Industrial Area at Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.9.2004. The petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.2,12,675/- in the form of bank draft which amount was paid by him vide his letter dated 16.9.2004. Thereafter the respondents further increased the rate per square meter to Rs.8250/-. This fact was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.10.2004. The petitioner even accepted the further enhancement of the rate of the plot and deposited the enhanced amount by way of bank draft. After the amount of Rs.1,17,975/- was paid by the petitioner, the respondents returned the aforesaid amount vide letter dated 28.12.2004 with the remarks that payment of additional price is not to be accepted. This letter was followed by another letter dated 10.3.2005 whereby the allotment of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner approached this Court seeking to challenge the action of the respondents in cancelling CWP No.4846 of 2005 (O&M) 3 the plot and has further prayed for allotment of the plot to the petitioner. Through the medium of CM Nos.3749-50/2010, the petitioner has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 18.5.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6836 of 2005 and has prayed for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Notice of the CM was issued to the other side. Mr. Walia has fairly accepted that the controversy is covered by the aforesaid judgment. On consideration of the various facts, a Division Bench of this court vide the aforesaid judgment passed following directions:- “..... As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present petition. The order/communication dated March 10, 2005 (Annexure P.10) issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, respondent no.3 is set aside. The respondents are directed to hand over the possession of the plot in question to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be required to re-deposit the amount of 15% which has been refunded by the Estate Officer alongwith communication dated March 10, 2005, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. On receipt of the aforesaid payment, the possession of the plot in question shall be handed over to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. The petitioner, however, shall be liable to make the remaining payment in accordance with the stipulations contained in the allotment letter. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Sd/-Viney Mittal, Judge sd/- H.S.Bhalla, Judge” CWP No.4846 of 2005 (O&M) 4 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8207/2008 filed against the judgment passed by this court in other connected matter also came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.2.2009 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Division Bench having attained finality and the case being covered, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforesaid writ petition by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Let the possession of the plot be handed over to the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.10. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5