Judgment:
Crl.Misc.
No.M-26292 of 2013 Dharam Singh Yadav v.
State of Haryana Present: Mr.J.S.Bedi,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajat Mor, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA.
Mr.Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the threshold, apprised this Court that the plots allotted to the other similarly situated allottees have been cancelled as has been reflected in the list Annexure D.1.
Vide order dated 26.8.2013 a direction was issued to the Chief Administrator, HUDA to file a detailed and elaborative status report by way of an affidavit with regard to plots allotted to other similarly situated allottees, including 34 allottees, shown in the list which has been supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In response to the aforesaid direction, although an affidavit has been filed but that touches only a little information/report sought by this Court which speaks that all Zonal Administrators and the Estate Officers have been directed to scrutinize the allotments made under the defence category, whereas, the requirement of the order dated 26.8.2013 is that in case the plots were allotted more than entitlement to other categories, including the general Crl.Misc.
No.M-26292 of 2013 -2- category, then a detailed description is to be mentioned in the affidavit.
It has also been mentioned in the affidavit that on coming to notice that fraud has been committed, then strict action is to be initiated by lodging an FIR besides cancellation of allotment.
The affidavit filed in half hearted manner does not say as to what would be the outcome of the scrutiny in case the plots allotted are found to be more than the entitlement in the light of the fact that the plots are being allotted for the last many yeaRs.Possibility there being that construction might have been raised upon some of the plots during these years and some of the plots might have been sold.
It appears that the affidavit has been drafted in a casual manner.
The authorities are not conscious as to what has been done while allotting various plots to a single allottee.
A lame excuse has been taken that the affidavits furnished by the allottees could not be ascertained in the absence of the computerized system is unreasonable, inasmuch as, there could have been different yardsticks to ascertain whether the allottee(s) has been allotted more than one plot or not.
The Court is not convinced with the stand taken by the HUDA authorities.
Let the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Haryana be present in the Court on the adjourned date.
He is to file an Crl.Misc.
No.M-26292 of 2013 -3- affidavit as to what steps are required to be taken to ascertain the allotment to different categories, including the general category.
The affidavit should also mention the list of the allottees who have been allotted more than one plot.
Although an adjournment has been requested on the premise that the information sought by this Court needs time, inasmuch as, it has to be sought from the Estate Officers throughout the State of Haryana which requires at least two months time, but before granting the time for the aforesaid purpose, this Court thinks that it would be appropriate to know as to what method requires to be adopted by the HUDA authorities.
The affidavit be filed within two weeks.
Adjourned to 8.10.2013.
Interim order to continue.
A copy of the order be given dasti to leanred counsel appearing for the HUDA under the signatures of Bench Secretary.
September 10, 2013 (Daya Chaudhary) KD Judge