Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Prem Singh v. HUDA & anr. - CWP-16064-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5864 (24 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 16064 OF 2004 [1]


* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 16064 OF 2004

Date of decision : July 18, 2006

* * * * *

Prem Singh ............Petitioner


HUDA & anr. ...........Respondents

* * * * *


Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Suraksha Sharda, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated April 6, 2004, whereby allotment of a plot No.1724, Sector 52 measuring 10 marlas in favour of the petitioner is ordered to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for the aforesaid allotment.

The petitioner has pleaded that he is an ex-serviceman since he was working with Borders Security Focres (BSF) in the rank of a constable.

Respondent no.1 issued an information Brochure, offering free hold C.W.P NO. 16064 OF 2004 [2]

residential plots in Sector 52, Gurgaon. 2% of the total and all kinds of plots were reserved for paramilitary forces like CRPF, BSF, ITBP, RPF, GSF etc.

of domicile of Haryana State.

Consequently, the petitioner applied for the allotment of a 10 marla plot vide an application dated November 27, 2002 along with an earnest money of Rs.88,000/-. In the draw of lots the petitioner was declared successful and an allotment letter dated July 9, 2003 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter.

However, vide communication dated April 6, 2004, the aforesaid allotment made in favour of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled. The aforesaid cancellation order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Court through the present petition.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been maintained that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of a 10 marla plot inasmuch as he was eligible for 8 marla, 6 marla and 4 marla plots being merely a constable in BSF. In support of the aforesaid plea, respondents have appended a copy of the Information Brochure as Annexure R-2 alongwith the written statement, wherein the aforesaid condition has been specified. We may also note that a specific challenge has been made by the petitioner to the aforesaid eligibility criteria adopted by the respondents.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Sh. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is absolutely no justification nor C.W.P NO. 16064 OF 2004 [3]

any rationale for sub-dividing the various defence personnel/ex- servicemen/widows of ex-servicemen/para-military forces personnel in various categories on the basis of their rank. Learned counsel maintains that the aforesaid classification was totally superficial and was not justified and was in fact discriminatory. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that in civil services, no such distinction/classification has been made and even a class IV employee of civil services was eligible for allotment of a 10 marla or a bigger plot.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the grievance made by the petitioner is wholly justified. In the Information Brochure or even in the written statement, no justification has been offered by the respondents as to why there was any such sub-division/classification amongst the defence personnel/ex-servicemen etc. As a matter of fact, in our considered view, the aforesaid classification amounts to discrimination amongst the persons who have ex-service background and as such have been granted a reservation.

Consequently, we quash the order Annexure P-4 and the plot in question which had been allotted to the petitioner shall stand restored back to him. Of course, the petitioner shall be required to deposit the remaining amount due from him, as per terms and conditions of the allotment.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.



July 18, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


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


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 |

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