Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDER KUMAR. versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravinder Kumar. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and - CWP-2314-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 279 (23 January 2006)

Civil Writ Petition No.2314 of 2005.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:9.2.2006.

Ravinder Kumar.

...Petitioner.

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority and others.

...Respondents.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.Surinder Sharma Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Vandana Malhotra Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr.Vijender Dhankar Advocate for respondent No.3.

...

Judgment.

J. S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as Civil Writ Petition No.2314 of 2005.

HUDA) in Sector 57, Gurgaon. The petitioner submitted application form bearing No.7762 to the respondents well before the last date of submission thereof, after fulfilling all the formalities indicated therein.

On the submission of the aforesaid application form, the petitioner was assigned registration No.G57-123255.

Draw of lots was conducted to determine the list of successful candidates. The said draw of lots was held on 25.11.2004.

Immediately thereafter, the list of successful candidates was published in the Danik Jagran wherein the petitioner was found successful. The list which appeared in Danik Jagran depicted that the applicant bearing registration No.G57-123255 had been allotted plot No.3379 in Sector 57, Gurgaon. It is the case of the petitioner that a similar list was displayed on the notice board by the HUDA. Consequent upon the success of the petitioner in the draw of lots, the petitioner received a large number of letters from the brokers/property dealers soliciting the sale/purchase of the plot in question. On the basis of factual position enumerated hereinabove, the petitioner claims his right to be assigned plot No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon consequent upon draw of lots conducted on 25.11.2004.

A joint written statement has been filed on behalf of Civil Writ Petition No.2314 of 2005.

respondent Nos.1 and 2. An independent reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 i.e. candidate who has actually been allotted plot No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon. A perusal of written statement filed jointly on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 reveals that application form number as well as registration number of the petitioner was mistakenly depicted in the Danik Jagran as well as on the notice in the office of HUDA, whereas, the factual position is that plot bearing No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon was actually drawn in favour of respondent No.3 at the time of draw of lots on 25.11.2004. In order to substantiate the aforesaid claim, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently contended that the plot assigned to respondent No.3 bearing No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon meausres 8 Marlas whereas the petitioner had applied only for a 10 Marla plot, and that, he was ineligible for the grant of a 8 Marla plot in furtherance of his application form No.7762 which was subsequently registered as G57-123255.

If the factual position narrated by the respondents is taken and examined collectively there is obviously merit in the same. Since the petitioner had not applied for a 8 Marla plot,there was no question of granting 8 Marla plot to the petitioner. The petitioner's application was only for a 10 Marla plot and since plot No.3379 in Sector 57 Gurgaon is Civil Writ Petition No.2314 of 2005.

only a 8 Marla plot, it is apparent that there is a mistake in mentioning the application form number and the registration number of the petitioner in the list of successful candidates depicted in Danik Jagran as well as on the notice displayed in the office of HUDA.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the claim of the petitioner for allotment of either plot No.3379, Sector 57, Gurgaon or for an alternative plot in lieu thereof.

Dismissed.

( J. S. Khehar )

Judge

February 9,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.