JUDGMENT Vikram Aggarwal, J. CM-11168-CWP-2022 in CWP-5049-2020 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to just exceptions. Photographs dated 08.07.2022 as Annexure P-19 are taken on record. Main Cases This judgment shall decide two writ petitions. CWP No.13421 of 2018 titled as 'Greenwood Society v. State of Haryana and another' was filed seeking setting aside of the advertisement dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-9) vide which applications had been invited for the sale of religious building site measuring 866 sq. meters situated in Blocks D, E and F, Greenwood City, Sector-46, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as 'the site in question'). A writ of mandamus was also sought seeking a direction to the respondents to allot the site in question to the petitioner. During the pendency of this writ petition, the site in question was allotted to respondent No.6 as a result of which, the second writ petition bearing CWP No.5049 of 2020 titled as 'Greenwood City Residents Welfare Association Society Gurugram v. State of Haryana and others' was filed. In this writ petition, quashing of proceedings dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-12) allotting the site in question to respondent No.6 has been sought. Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the site in question in accordance with the guidelines dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) has also been sought. The petitioner further seeks quashing of allotment letter dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure P-14) issued in favour of respondent No.6. The facts are being taken from the subsequent writ petition i.e. CWP No.5049 of 2020 titled as Greenwood City Residents Welfare Association Society Gurugram v. State of Haryana and others'. 2. The petitioner-society claims itself to have been constituted for the welfare of residents in Blocks D, E and F of Greenwood City of Gurugram. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 who was granted a licence for development of a colony failed to develop a community site designated as a religious building thereby violating its obligation under the agreement dated 27.01.1992 (Annexure P-2). Under the circumstances, the site was handed over to the Senior Town Planner, vide communication dated 07.05.2012 (Annexure P-3). This action was opposed by the petitioner by various representations (Annexure P-4) (colly). Vide communications Annexure P-6 (colly), it was pointed out by the petitioner that the site in question was to be utilized for building a secular centre i.e. Sary Dharm Sansthan' cum Yoga Centre. This action was opposed by the petitioner by various representations (Annexure P-4) (colly). Vide communications Annexure P-6 (colly), it was pointed out by the petitioner that the site in question was to be utilized for building a secular centre i.e. Sary Dharm Sansthan' cum Yoga Centre. Despite the said representations, the site in question was handed over to M/s Unitech Limited to which also the petitioner objected vide letter dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P-7). However, the status of the site in question remained the same and the residents continued to take benefit of the already developed site. On 15.02.2018, an advertisement (Annexure P-9) was issued for sale of the site. The petitioner also submitted an application for allotment of the same highlighting that there was an Iskon Temple across the road in Sector-45 and another temple just outside the fenced colony and, therefore, the site in question was to be developed as a Yoga-cum-Mediation Centre to be utilized by all persons irrespective of their caste, creed, orientation etc. CWP No.13421 of 2018 titled as 'Greenwood Society v. State of Haryana and another' was also filed challenging the advertisement. In terms of the proceedings dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-12), the site in question was allotted to respondent No.6. It is the case of the petitioner that the official respondents had a predisposed mind in favour of respondent No.6 and that they did not discuss the issues highlighted by the petitioner and issued the allotted site in question to respondent No.6 in violation of the policy dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-11). Letter of allotment dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure P-14) was also issued in favour of respondent No.6 leading to the filing of the present writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that Sector-46, Gurugram already has two temples and the area around Sector-46 already has more than four temples and, therefore, the allotment of the site in question for construction of another temple was in conflict with the guidelines laid down vide letter dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-11). Certain photographs have also been placed on record as Annexures P-16 and P-17. 3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. Respondent No.1, in its written statement, has averred that the allotment was done after determining the final eligibility of the applicants which included the petitioner and a detailed examination was carried out by the Committee constituted for the purpose. 3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. Respondent No.1, in its written statement, has averred that the allotment was done after determining the final eligibility of the applicants which included the petitioner and a detailed examination was carried out by the Committee constituted for the purpose. It has been averred that the Committee was under the Chairmanship of a Senior IAS officer i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram and the Committee, after examining the criteria in accordance with the guidelines dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-11), took a decision to allot the site in question to respondent No.6. Reliance has been placed upon various provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Act'). It is the case of respondent No.1 that in 1994, it was observed by the Department of Town and Country Planning that colonizers to whom the licences had been granted for setting up of residential colonies had not been constructing the community buildings i.e. schools, hospitals, community centre and other community buildings on the land set apart for the said purpose and were creating third/fourth party rights by transferring the same to their own created trusts who had further transferred such sites on lease hold basis or by sale to some other institutions. Even these trusts were not constructing the community sites within a stipulated period. Accordingly, instructions were issued to various colonizers on 25.10.1994 directing them not to create third/fourth party rights and to raise construction on the said community land. 4. Respondents No.2 to 4 filed their separate written statement. It has been averred that the respondent No.5 had handed over the site in question in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 27.01.1992. The stand taken by respondents No.2 to 4 is similar to that taken by respondent No.1 and the allotment of the site in question to respondent No.6 has been justified. It has been averred that the Committee formed for the purpose of allotment of the site examined the matter in detail and thereafter, allotted the site in question to respondent No.6. It has been denied that the allotment is in contradiction to the guidelines dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P- 11). 5. Respondents No.5 and 6 have also filed their separate written statements justifying their own stands. 6. It has been denied that the allotment is in contradiction to the guidelines dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P- 11). 5. Respondents No.5 and 6 have also filed their separate written statements justifying their own stands. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the two writ petitions. 7. Sh. Akshay Bhan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners has made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the action of the official respondents in firstly taking over the site in question and then advertising it and finally allotting it to respondent No.6 is illegal and arbitrary. Learned senior counsel has apprised the Court about the sequence of events starting from the issuance of licence to M/s Unitech Investments Limited, execution of agreement dated 27.01.1992 (Annexure P-2), the terms and conditions of the agreement including the liability of the owner i.e. M/s Unitech Investments Limited to construct at its cost schools, hospitals, community centres and other community buildings on the land set apart for the said purpose, the handing over of the site in question to the Senior Town Planner, Gurugram, the issuance of advertisement dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-9), filing of CWP No.13421 of 2018 titled as Greenwood Society v. State of Haryana and another and final allotment of the site in question in favour of respondent No.6. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the policy/guidelines dated 01.12.2008. Reference has been made to various provisions of the 1975 Act and has laid stress upon the fact that the site in question was supposed to be utilized for secular purposes instead of development of a temple etc. for any particular community. It has been submitted that people belonging to all communities live in the area and the site in question should have been allotted for the benefit of all of them. It has also been contended that there is already a temple and a gurudwara in Sector-45 and jointly Sectors 40, 45 and 46 have more than five such religious buildings. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the proceedings of the Committee (Annexure P-12) and has submitted that the Committee did not examine the matter from the right perspective and, being predisposed towards respondent No.6, allotted the site to it. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the proceedings of the Committee (Annexure P-12) and has submitted that the Committee did not examine the matter from the right perspective and, being predisposed towards respondent No.6, allotted the site to it. Learned senior counsel has, thus, submitted that the allotment of the site in question to respondent No.6 is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Babbar Bhan and another v. State of Haryana and others 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 311. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents have opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and have submitted that the allotment of the site in question to respondent No.6 has been made in accordance with law. Reference has been made to advertisement dated 15.02.2018(Annexure P-9). It has been submitted that it was duly mentioned in the application that the applications received shall be scrutinized by the Committee constituted for the purpose under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner and the allotment would be made as per the decision of the authority. It has also been submitted that the application form which was available on the website, had to be filled up by the applicants along with duly asked for all details including the financial details of the applicant. Reference has been made to the proceedings dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-12) wherein the allotment of the site in question was discussed and thereafter, a decision was taken after examining all the facts and circumstances. It has been submitted that there is no violation of the policy/guidelines dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) and that the site in question was ear-marked for community purposes from the very first day. It has been argued that because the builder with whom the agreement dated 27.01.1992 (Annexure P-2) had been executed did not develop the site in question, the same was taken over by the Government and then allotted in accordance with law. It has also been submitted that the petitioner itself was an applicant for the site in question and being an applicant, it is dis-entitled from challenging the allotment of the site in question. 9. Sh. Gaurav Chopra, learned senior counsel representing respondent No.6 has submitted that the allotment has been made purely in accordance with law. It has also been submitted that the petitioner itself was an applicant for the site in question and being an applicant, it is dis-entitled from challenging the allotment of the site in question. 9. Sh. Gaurav Chopra, learned senior counsel representing respondent No.6 has submitted that the allotment has been made purely in accordance with law. Reference has been made to the proceedings dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-12). A comparative statement was also produced before the Court and it was submitted that the financial condition of respondent No.6 was way better than that of the petitioner and this also weighed with the Committee while deciding the question of allotment of the site in question. It has been submitted that the official respondents have adopted a very transparent procedure. It has been contended that each angle was considered by the Committee concerned and thereafter, the allotment was made in a transparent manner. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides and after due consideration of the same, we find that there is no illegality in the allotment of the site in question to respondent No.6. Agreement dated 27.01.1992 (Annexure P-2) was executed between M/s Unitech Investments Limited and the State of Haryana through the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. M/s Unitech Investments Limited was the owner in possession of land measuring 1.22 acres in Village Jharsa, District Gurugram. As per the agreement, this land was to be utilized for setting up a colony. Certain terms and conditions were laid down in the agreement which included Clause 1(h), which reads as under:- "(h) That the owner shall construct at this own or get constructed by any other institution or individual at its cost, schools, hospitals, community centers and other community building on the land set apart for this purpose or undertake to transfer to the Government at any time, if so desired by the government, free of cost, the land set apart for schools, hospitals, community centers and other community building, in which case the government shall be at the liberty to transfer such land to any person or institution including Local authority on such terms and conditions as it may lay down. No third party rights will be created without obtaining the prior permission of the Director, Town and Country planning. No third party rights will be created without obtaining the prior permission of the Director, Town and Country planning. All the community buildings will be got constructed by the colonizer within time period so specified by the Director for the individual plan of licensed area as well as total, combined plans of the licensed area as a whole." A perusal of the aforesaid clause shows that the Government was at liberty to get the land, ear-marked for community buildings etc., transferred to itself free of cost and then to transfer it to any other person or institution on its own terms and conditions. Since even after 20 years from the date of execution of the agreement, the site in question had not been utilized for constructing a community building or a religious building, the same was handed over to the Senior Town Planner, Gurugram, vide communication dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure P-3). 11. This act was opposed by the residents of the area and they wanted that the site in question should be handed over to the Residents Welfare Association of Greenwood City, Sector-46, Gurugram. Certain representations were also made. However, the request was not acceded to and rightly so because the official respondents were to deal with the site in question in accordance with law and could not have handed over the same to any association on its mere asking. 12. Finally, advertisement dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-9) was issued. The application form which is on record as Annexure P-10 (having been filled up by the petitioner) shows that there were various details which were required to be filled in, which included the constitution of the applicant, its aims and objectives, details of similar institutions set up, its financial position etc. The land utilization plan was to be enclosed. The purpose for which the land was required was also to be disclosed. The petitioner initially challenged the issuance of this advertisement by way of CWP No.13421 of 2018 titled as 'Greenwood Society v. State of Haryana and another' but during the pendency of the same, the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.6. The proceedings dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-12) are detailed proceedings. Interviews were conducted by a High Powered Committee chaired by the Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram. The proceedings dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-12) are detailed proceedings. Interviews were conducted by a High Powered Committee chaired by the Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram. Apart from the Chairman, it consisted of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram; the Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as 'the HSVP'); the Estate officer, HSVP, Gurugram and the District Town Planner, Gurugram. The panel, as per the proceedings, considered various aspects including earnest money, registration of the society, financial position, project report submitted by the applicants and the objective of the society at the time of interview and thereafter, made its recommendation. The site in question was recommended to be allotted to respondent No.6 and ultimately the allotment was made by the Chief Administrator of HSVP. We do not find it necessary to go into the minds of the experts with a view to examine as to what must have weighed with them. It was an expert panel dealing with these issues on regular basis and this panel took a conscious decision after examining the matter from all angles. The comparative statement produced by learned senior counsel representing respondent No.6 shows that respondent No.6 was way ahead of the petitioner in many aspects e.g. in setting up of similar institutions prior to the institution to be set up on the site in question, its financial condition etc. It has to be borne-in-mind that the financial condition of an applicant is also a very important aspect as it has not only to make payments to the allotting authority but has to utilise the site also for the purpose, for which it is allotted. The subjective satisfaction of a panel cannot be questioned lightly. 13. The argument that the allotment of the site in question was made in violation of the policy/guidelines dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) is concerned, is also devoid of merit. The site in question was ear-marked as a religious building from day one. The fact that there are other temples and gurudwara as etc. in the vicinity would not make a difference as the site in question, as has been already observed, was already ear-marked for community purposes and was designated as a religious building. 14. We have gone through the judgment in the case of Babbar Bhan and another v. State of Haryana and others (supra). In that case certain industrial plots had been allotted in Industrial Estate, Bhiwani. 14. We have gone through the judgment in the case of Babbar Bhan and another v. State of Haryana and others (supra). In that case certain industrial plots had been allotted in Industrial Estate, Bhiwani. Allegations were levelled that the same were vitiated by nepotism, favouritism and total lack of a fair and transparent procedure. It was also alleged that the successful allottees were relatives/friends of politicians and bureaucrats as a result of which, they had succeeded in securing the allotments. After examining the matter, the Division Bench arrived at the conclusion that the allegations were correct, there was no transparency, no comparative merit of the successful and unsuccessful applicants had been drawn and no exercise had been undertaken to compare the successful allottees and the unsuccessful ones. The allotments were, therefore, set aside. This judgment would not come to the aid to the petitioner as in the present case, it has been found that the procedure adopted for allotment was fully transparent. Advertisement was issued. Applications were invited on a proper proforma. A high powered committee considered the individual merit of each of the applicant and then took a final decision to make a recommendation. It is nobody's case that respondent No.6 was related to some bureaucrat or politician or to someone in the allotting authority. The petitioner, therefore, would not be able to draw any benefit from this judgment. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the inescapable conclusion that we arrived at is that there is no illegality in the allotment of the site in question to respondent No.6. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed. Since the writ petitions stand dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in these application and the same are disposed of as having been rendered in-fructuous.