Sushil Gupta & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.3.2018 Sushil Gupta and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent-HUDA. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P17) and the orders dated 28.9.2016 (Annexures P-18 to P-20, respectively) passed by respondent No.3. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot the plots to the petitioners under the oustees quota for which they had already applied on the prescribed proforma along with 10% earnest money.

2.

The petitioners were owners of the land situated within the revenue estate of village Saketri, District Panchkula which was acquired by the State of Haryana vide award dated 9.10.2003 for the development of

-2various sectors MDC, Panchkula. As per the certificates dated 25.4.2002, 19.4.2012 and 24.4.2012 (Annexures P-1 to P-3, respectively), the land of the petitioners fall in Sector 3, MDC, Panchkula. Vide advertisement dated 4.3.2012 (Annexure P-4), the respondents had invited the applications on prescribed proforma along with 10% earnest money from the oustees of Sectors 2 and 6, MDC, Panchkula. In response thereto, the petitioners had applied for the allotment of plots along with 10% earnest money as is clear from the applications and deposit receipts (Annexures P-5 to P-9, respectively). On examination, the applications of the petitioners were found in order by the Screening Committee vide proceedings dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure P-10). Respondent No.3 vide letters dated 15.6.2015 and 1.8.

2014 (Annexures P-11 and P-12, respectively) directed the petitioners to submit 'No Objection Certificate' from the other co-sharers in the shape of an affidavit duly attested from the Executive Magistrate. The said letters were duly replied by the petitioners vide replies dated 22.6.2015 and 20.4.2016 (Annexures P-13 to P-15, respectively). Thereafter, the petitioners filed writ petition and this Court vide order dated 4.4.2016 (Annexure P-16) passed in CWP-6684-2014 disposed of a bunch of petitions with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of each petitioner strictly in terms of the decisions referred to above. A policy dated 11.8.

2016 (Annexure P-17) was framed by the HUDA wherein it was advised to the landowners to apply for allotment of plot in fresh advertisement which would be issued after determination of reservation and the earnest money would be refunded along with interest. Respondent No.3 vide orders dated 28.9.

-3earnest money. Respondent No.3 vide letters dated 21.11.2016 (Annexures P-21 and P-22, respectively) refunded the earnest money of the petitioners. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 11.1.2017 (Annexure P-23) for e-auction of the plots in Sectors 2 and 6, MDC, Panchkula. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-22252-2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others) decided on 22.11.2017, the matter is required to be revisited by the authorities. Accordingly, it was prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Full

-4Bench of this Court in Rajiv Manchanda's case (supra). The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 26, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No