Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1067 (PNJ)

Saroj Ahlawat v. State of Haryana

2008-05-20

JASWANT SINGH, VIJENDER JAIN

body2008
JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, Chief Justice (Oral) - Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioner has filed this writ petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the revisional order dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-13) whereby the order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by Administrator, H.U.D.A., Rohtak in appeal restoring the plot in question, in favour of the petitioner, was set aside. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 420 Sq. Mtrs. in Sector 9, 9-A, Bahadurgarh in draw of lots, vide letter No. 4492 dated 28.7.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that daughter of the petitioner was diagnosed having tumor in her brain and she was operated upon because of that ailment. Since the petitioner had to spent a lot of money on her treatment, she moved an application to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh for refund of the amount which was deposited by her towards the earnest money as well as the price of the plot. 5. We may note here that only two annual installments totalling a sum of Rs. 5,31,969/-were deposited by the petitioner by the end of the year 2001. The tentative cost of the plot, when it was allotted, was Rs. 10,63,914/-. 6. The Estate Officer in April, 2004 acceded to the prayer of the petitioner and ordered the refund of the amount deposited by her after deducting an amount of 10% of the costs and after making certain other deductions. 7. After 1½ years, on 28.12.2005. the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure P-6) before the Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak for restoration of the residential plot in question. The Administrator/Appellate Authority restored the plot vide its order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P-8). It was on 23.10.2006 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10,08,422/-with the respondents and demanded the possession of the plot. However, the possession of the plot was not given to the petitioner, she filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar on 30.3.2007. The said Forum vide its order dated 31.7.2007 issued a direction to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh to deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner within one month from the date of passing of the order. 8. On 26.2.2007, Estate Officer, Bahadurgarh filed a Revision Petition against the appellate order dated 16.10.2006. The said Forum vide its order dated 31.7.2007 issued a direction to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bahadurgarh to deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner within one month from the date of passing of the order. 8. On 26.2.2007, Estate Officer, Bahadurgarh filed a Revision Petition against the appellate order dated 16.10.2006. Revisional Authority i.e. Respondent No.1 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Administrator vide order dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-13). The order passed by the Administrator dated 12.2.2008 has been impugned before us by the petitioner. 9. At the out set, we asked Mr. Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as to under what provisions of law, Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak exercising the power of Chief Administrator, HUDA, could have restored the plot in question to the petitioner. On this, Mr. Jain has very fairly conceded that there is no provision under which the plot in question could have been restored by the Administrator, HUDA. 10. The mode of allotment of plots is clearly laid down in Haryana Urban Development Authority Act and the policies/guidelines issued from time to time. When there is no provision in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act and the policies/guidelines issued from time to time for restoration/allotment of a plot, which was voluntarily surrendered by the allottee, the same could not have been reallotted to the allottee. 11. Before parting, we would like to observe that petitioner while making application for surrendering the plot took the ground of the costs of the treatment which was spent on the treatment of her ailing daughter, whereas in the application which was made for restoration/reallotment of the plot, she took a plea that the plot was surrendered on account of admission of her daughter in M.B.B.S. in Mauritius, as she was in dire necessity of money to deposit the admission fee, therefore, she had prayed for refund of the amount. The stand taken by her at two different occasions was different. It is not understandable how the Administrator in the year 2005 could have ordered for reallotment of the plot which was originally allotted to the petitioner in the year 2000, on the rate prevalent at the time of original allotment. According to us, the same cannot be done because the prices in the year 2000 were much less than the prices which were prevalent in the year 2005. 12. According to us, the same cannot be done because the prices in the year 2000 were much less than the prices which were prevalent in the year 2005. 12. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Revisional Authority. 13. There is no merit in this petition. 14. Dismissed. 15. The amount, so deposited by the petitioner, be returned to her in accordance with rules, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.