Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1058905
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-27-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sandeep Sharma Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh ***** c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 date of decision:27. 08.2013 balwan singh ....petitioner versus state of haryana and others ....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal hon’ble mr.justice mahavir s. chauhan present: mr.sandeep sharma, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.indresh goel, additional advocate general, haryana, for respondent no.1. mr.rahul garg, advocate, for mr.siddharth batra, advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4. mahavir s. chauhan, j. petitioner's land measuring 5 acres was acquired in the year 1993 for the development of sectors 38 to 41 and 47, gurgaon. prior thereto, on 18.03.1992, respondents had framed a policy (popularly known as “oustee policy”.) for allotment of plots to the land owners whose lands were acquired (for short, the oustees).clauses (i) and (ii) of the policy dated 18.03.1992 (annexure p-1) read as under:- “(i) plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of the oustees prior to the publication of the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act and if 75% or more of the total land owned by the land-owners in that sector is acquired. (ii) outstees whose land acquired is:- virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -2- a) less than 500 sq. yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq. yards. b) between 500 sq. yards and one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq.yards. c) from 1 acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 sq. yards plot are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yards each may be given.” in the year 2004, respondents invited applications from the oustees. petitioner also submitted his application dated 29.04.2004 (annexure p-2) for allotment of a one-kanal plot. the petitioner also deposited, along with the application, an amount of rs.2,21,004/- as earnest money. respondents acknowledged receipt of the application as also the earnest money vide receipt dated 30.04.2004. claim of the petitioner was verified as genuine vide office note dated 22.04.2004 (annexure p3).applications of a few oustees, including the petitioner, however, were not included in the mini draw of lots held on 23.05.2006 though, as evidenced by the proceedings (annexure p-4).they were found eligible for allotment of plots of different sizes. petitioner was found eligible for allotment of a one-kanal plot but it was conveyed to him that no plot was available for allotment to him and the district town planner, gurgaon, was asked to carve out sufficient number of plots for allotment to eligible applicants. however, no such plot has been allotted to the petitioner till date whereas the respondents have allotted plots to other similarly situated persons. one dharam parkash son of prabhu dayal had also applied for a one-kanal plot and was declared eligible, along with the petitioner, vide proceedings (annexure p-4) and no plot virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -3- was allotted to him also for the same reason as mentioned in the case of the petitioner. however, said dharam parkash was allotted plot no.834 measuring 1.5 kanals in sector 47, gurgaon, in spite of the fact that in the list of eligible applicants appearing in annexure p4, name of the petitioner figured at serial no.1 and that of aforesaid dharam parkash appeared at serial no.5. representation dated 10.05.2012 (annexure p- 7) made by the petitioner having failed to receive any response, he approached this court vide c.w.p.no.19622 of 2012, wherein, vide order dated 03.10.2012 (annexure p-12).the respondents were directed to decide representation dated 10.05.2012 (annexure p-7) made by the petitioner. however, said representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 14.01.2013 (annexure p- 15).to seek quashing of the order dated 14.01.2013 (annexure p- 15) and issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner as per his entitlement, the instant writ petition has been filed by him under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india. in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents it has been admitted that the land of the petitioner was acquired for development of residential and commercial sectors 38 to 41 and 47, gurgaon, vide award no.7 dated 16.03.1993; the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in sector 47, gurgaon; his case was considered by the screening committee on 16.05.2006 and he was held eligible for allotment of a one-kanal plot; but no plot could be allotted to him as there was no one-kanal plot available in sector 47, gurgaon; and according to the huda policy dated 12.03.1993, a land owner is entitled to allotment of plot under oustee virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -4- category in the same sector for which his land has been acquired. as regards the allotment of a plot to aforesaid dharam parkash, it is stated in the counter that it was done in compliance of orders of this court passed in cwp no.15351 of 2011. we have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. it is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have allotted a 1.5-kanal plot to aforesaid dharam parkash even though he was entitled for a one-kanal plot and his name appeared at serial no.5 in the list of eligible applicants whereas name of the petitioner appeared at serial no.1 and there was no direction by this court to allot a plot to said dharam parkash and as per order dated 27.09.2012, as reproduced in order dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14) passed by the chief administrator, huda, panchkula, a direction was given to the respondents 'to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' therein, namely, dharam parkash. in fact, plot no.834, sector 47, gurgaon, was allotted to said dharam parkash on 03.01.2012, i.e., much prior to passing of order dated 27.09.2012, which is indicative of discriminatory approach of the respondents. learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a communication dated 21.07.2009 (annexure p-6) to show that a number of onekanal plots are lying vacant and are available for allotment in sectors 38, 41, 42, 47 and 51, gurgaon, and submits that land of the petitioner having been acquired for development of sectors 38 to 41 and 47, gurgaon, there should have been no difficulty in allotment of a plot to virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -5- him in either of the aforesaid sectors.where one kanal plots are available. on behalf of the respondents it is argued that the petitioner applied for a one-kanal plot in sector 47, gurgaon, and, as such, his application cannot be considered for allotment of a plot in any other sector in terms of policy of the respondents and, incidentally, in sector 47, gurgaon no one-kanal plot is available for allotment. when confronted with order dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14).learned counsel for the respondents have come out with a plea that the plot was allotted to aforesaid dharam parkash in compliance of the orders of this court. having heard the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, we find that the respondents have acted in a mala fide and discriminatory manner. it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired for development of sectors 38 to 41 and 47, gurgaon, and that as per policy dated 18.03.1992 (annexure p-1).the petitioner is entitled to a plot measuring 500 sq. yards or say one-kanal plot. as per affidavit dated 27.05.2013 of shri narender singh yadav, estate officer- ii, gurgaon, five one-kanal plots in sector 38, gurgaon, and 14 one-kanal plots in sector-39, gurgaon, are lying vacant and are available for allotment. reverting to proceedings of mini draw held on 23.05.2006 (annexure p-4).it is found that there were 12 persons to whom plots could not be allotted owing to non-availability of plots as per their entitlement. name of the petitioner appears at serial number 1 and that of aforesaid dharam parkash son of prabhu dayal is at serial no.5 of the virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -6- list of such applicants. as recorded in order dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14).aforesaid dharam parkash has been allotted plot no.834, sector 47, gurgaon, on 03.01.2012. it is argued on behalf of the respondents that this allotment was made in compliance of order dated 27.09.2012 of this court. however, in para 7 of the order dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14).it is mentioned that petitioner had filed cwp no.15351 of 2010 and during the pendency of said writ petition, a contempt notice was issued and, as such, the estate officer-ii, huda, gurgaon, had allotted plot no.834, sector 47, gurgaon, to aforesaid dharam parkash. in this very paragraph, it has also been stated that said dharam parkash could not be allotted a plot previously as there was no plot available in sector 47, gurgaon. how and from where plot no.834 has been made available to said dharam prakash has remained a mystery. it is not only surprising but agonizing also that the respondents did not bring to the notice of this court during the pendency of cwp no.15351 of 2010 that name of the present petitioner appeared in the list of eligible applicants much above the name of said dharam parkash, petitioner in that writ petition. another very surprisingly aspect of the matter is that the order dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14) is shown to have been passed in compliance of order dated 27.09.2012 passed in cwp no.1209 of 2012 titled 'dharam parkash versus state of haryana and others'. operative part of the said order has been reproduced at the out set and a perusal thereof shows that there is no direction for allotment of plot to aforesaid dharam parkash and the only direction was to treat the writ petition of petitioner- dharam parkash as a representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order. another very disturbing aspect of the situation is that virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -7- plot no.834, sector 47, gurgaon, has been allotted to aforesaid dharam parkash even though stand of the respondents in paragraph 7 of order dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14) is that no one-kanal plot was available in sector 47, gurgaon for being allotted to said dharam parkash. a submission put up on behalf of the petitioner during the cours.of arguments that said dharam parkash has been allotted a 1.5 kanal plot even though his entitlement for a one-kanal plot has not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. at the same time, the representation made by the petitioner has been disposed of vide order dated 14.01.2013 (annexure p-15) saying that no plot could be allotted to him as according to the huda policy dated 12.03.1993, petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot in sector 47, gurgaon, only and, incidentally, in that sector no one-kanal plot is available. this order has been passed in compliance of order dated 03.10.2012 (annexure p-12) rendered in cwp no.19622 of 2012 titled as 'balwan singh versus state of haryana and others'. the order dated 03.10.2012, as reproduced in annexure p-15, is to the following effect:- “taking note of the facts of this case, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to respondent no.2 to decide representation (p7) filed by the petitioner and if the petitioner is found eligible for allotment of plot as per policy contemplating allotment of plots to the oustees, the relief be granted to him forthwith. before passing any order, an opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner. the needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” when the two orders.i.e., orders dated 31.10.2012 (annexure p-14) and 14.01.2013 (annexure p-15) are read in virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -8- juxtaposition to each other, it comes out that the petitioner's case is is far better as compared to that of aforesaid dharam parkash in so far as in the list of eligible applicants (annexure p-4) name of the petitioner appears at serial no.1 and that of dharam parkash appears at serial no.5. in both the cases stand of the respondents has been that there is no one-kanal plot available for allotment in sector 47, gurgaon, and in both the cases direction of this court is to dispose of their representations. however, in the case of aforesaid dharam parkash, respondents have shown extra-ordinary and unprecedented magnanimity and have allotted him a 1.5 kanal plot in sector 47, gurgaon, even though he was entitled for a one-kanal plot only and, at the same time, representation of the petitioner has been rejected by saying that no one- kanal plot is available in sector 47, gurgaon, and claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for allotment of plot in any other sector. this is sheer breach of the equality clauses enshrined in article 14 of the constitution of india. rather, the circumstances indicate that these clauses have been assassinated by the respondents to accommodate their blue eyed boy, i.e., dharam parkash, at the cost of the petitioner. action of the respondents, therefore, deserves the strongest possible deprecation. allotment of a plot has been denied to the petitioner in spite of the fact that as many as 05 one-kanal plots in sector 38 and as many as 14, one-kanal plots in sector 39 are available for allotment and, admittedly, land of the petitioner, which is part of one and the same acquisition, was acquired for development of sectors 38 to 41 and 47, gurgaon. that being so, there should have been no difficulty in allotting a virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p.no.1025 of 2013 -9- plot to the petitioner either in sector 38 or in sector 39, gurgaon, as per his entitlement. in view of the situation as hereinbefore depicted, the petitioner was entitled to allotment of plot, in preference to aforesaid dharam parkash, and the allotment of plot, to said dharam parkash by ignoring claim of the petitioner, would have been sufficient to cancel allotment in favour of the said dharam parkash but he being not before us, we refrain ourselves from passing an order advers.to his interest, more-so, the petitioner can be compensated by directing the respondents to allot a one-kanal plot to him either in sector-38 or in sector-39, gurgaon. in the consequence, we accept the writ petition, quash order dated 14.01.2013 (annexure p-15) and direct the respondents to allot a one-kanal plot to the petitioner either in sector-38 or sector-39, gurgaon, within two months from today, after taking his option as regards the sector. the petitioner is also held entitled to costs of rs.10,000/-, to be recovered from the officer responsible for allotment of a plot to aforesaid dharam parkash by ignoring better claim of the petitioner. (satish kumar mittal) (mahavir s. chauhan) judge judge 27 08.2013 adhikari virender singh adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 Date of Decision:

27. 08.2013 Balwan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Indresh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate, for Mr.Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN, J.

Petitioner's land measuring 5 acres was acquired in the year 1993 for the development of Sectors 38 to 41 and 47, Gurgaon.

Prior thereto, on 18.03.1992, respondents had framed a policy (popularly known as “oustee policy”.) for allotment of plots to the land owners whose lands were acquired (for short, the oustees).Clauses (i) and (ii) of the policy dated 18.03.1992 (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “(i) Plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of the oustees prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% or more of the total Land owned by the land-owners in that sector is acquired.

(ii) Outstees whose land acquired is:- Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -2- a) Less than 500 Sq.

Yards would be offered a plot of 50 Sq.

Yards.

b) Between 500 Sq.

Yards and one acre would be offered a plot of 250 Sq.Yards.

c) From 1 acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 Sq.

Yards or where 500 Sq.

yards plot are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 Sq.

Yards each may be given.”

In the year 2004, respondents invited applications from the oustees.

Petitioner also submitted his application dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure P-2) for allotment of a one-kanal plot.

The petitioner also deposited, along with the application, an amount of Rs.2,21,004/- as earnest money.

Respondents acknowledged receipt of the application as also the earnest money vide receipt dated 30.04.2004.

Claim of the petitioner was verified as genuine vide office note dated 22.04.2004 (Annexure P3).Applications of a few oustees, including the petitioner, however, were not included in the mini draw of lots held on 23.05.2006 though, as evidenced by the proceedings (Annexure P-4).they were found eligible for allotment of plots of different sizes.

Petitioner was found eligible for allotment of a one-kanal plot but it was conveyed to him that no plot was available for allotment to him and the District Town Planner, Gurgaon, was asked to carve out sufficient number of plots for allotment to eligible applicants.

However, no such plot has been allotted to the petitioner till date whereas the respondents have allotted plots to other similarly situated persons.

One Dharam Parkash son of Prabhu Dayal had also applied for a one-kanal plot and was declared eligible, along with the petitioner, vide proceedings (Annexure P-4) and no plot Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -3- was allotted to him also for the same reason as mentioned in the case of the petitioner.

However, said Dharam Parkash was allotted Plot No.834 measuring 1.5 kanals in Sector 47, Gurgaon, in spite of the fact that in the list of eligible applicants appearing in Annexure P4, name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.1 and that of aforesaid Dharam Parkash appeared at Serial No.5.

Representation dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure P- 7) made by the petitioner having failed to receive any response, he approached this Court vide C.W.P.No.19622 of 2012, wherein, vide order dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-12).the respondents were directed to decide representation dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) made by the petitioner.

However, said representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P- 15).To seek quashing of the order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P- 15) and issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner as per his entitlement, the instant writ petition has been filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents it has been admitted that the land of the petitioner was acquired for development of residential and commercial Sectors 38 to 41 and 47, Gurgaon, vide award No.7 dated 16.03.1993; the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in Sector 47, Gurgaon; his case was considered by the Screening Committee on 16.05.2006 and he was held eligible for allotment of a one-kanal plot; but no plot could be allotted to him as there was no one-kanal plot available in Sector 47, Gurgaon; and according to the HUDA policy dated 12.03.1993, a land owner is entitled to allotment of plot under Oustee Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -4- category in the same sector for which his land has been acquired.

As regards the allotment of a plot to aforesaid Dharam Parkash, it is stated in the counter that it was done in compliance of orders of this Court passed in CWP No.15351 of 2011.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have allotted a 1.5-kanal plot to aforesaid Dharam Parkash even though he was entitled for a one-kanal plot and his name appeared at Serial No.5 in the list of eligible applicants whereas name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.1 and there was no direction by this Court to allot a plot to said Dharam Parkash and as per order dated 27.09.2012, as reproduced in order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, a direction was given to the respondents 'to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' therein, namely, Dharam Parkash.

In fact, Plot No.834, Sector 47, Gurgaon, was allotted to said Dharam Parkash on 03.01.2012, i.e., much prior to passing of order dated 27.09.2012, which is indicative of discriminatory approach of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a communication dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-6) to show that a number of onekanal plots are lying vacant and are available for allotment in Sectors 38, 41, 42, 47 and 51, Gurgaon, and submits that land of the petitioner having been acquired for development of Sectors 38 to 41 and 47, Gurgaon, there should have been no difficulty in allotment of a plot to Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -5- him in either of the aforesaid sectORS.where one kanal plots are available.

On behalf of the respondents it is argued that the petitioner applied for a one-kanal plot in Sector 47, Gurgaon, and, as such, his application cannot be considered for allotment of a plot in any other sector in terms of policy of the respondents and, incidentally, in Sector 47, Gurgaon no one-kanal plot is available for allotment.

When confronted with order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14).learned counsel for the respondents have come out with a plea that the plot was allotted to aforesaid Dharam Parkash in compliance of the orders of this Court.

Having heard the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, we find that the respondents have acted in a mala fide and discriminatory manner.

It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired for development of Sectors 38 to 41 and 47, Gurgaon, and that as per policy dated 18.03.1992 (Annexure P-1).the petitioner is entitled to a plot measuring 500 Sq.

Yards or say one-kanal plot.

As per affidavit dated 27.05.2013 of Shri Narender Singh Yadav, Estate Officer- II, Gurgaon, five one-kanal plots in Sector 38, Gurgaon, and 14 one-kanal plots in Sector-39, Gurgaon, are lying vacant and are available for allotment.

Reverting to proceedings of mini draw held on 23.05.2006 (Annexure P-4).it is found that there were 12 persons to whom plots could not be allotted owing to non-availability of plots as per their entitlement.

Name of the petitioner appears at serial number 1 and that of aforesaid Dharam Parkash son of Prabhu Dayal is at serial No.5 of the Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -6- list of such applicants.

As recorded in order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14).aforesaid Dharam Parkash has been allotted Plot No.834, Sector 47, Gurgaon, on 03.01.2012.

It is argued on behalf of the respondents that this allotment was made in compliance of order dated 27.09.2012 of this Court.

However, in para 7 of the order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14).it is mentioned that petitioner had filed CWP No.15351 of 2010 and during the pendency of said writ petition, a contempt notice was issued and, as such, the Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon, had allotted Plot No.834, Sector 47, Gurgaon, to aforesaid Dharam Parkash.

In this very paragraph, it has also been stated that said Dharam Parkash could not be allotted a plot previously as there was no plot available in Sector 47, Gurgaon.

How and from where plot No.834 has been made available to said Dharam Prakash has remained a mystery.

It is not only surprising but agonizing also that the respondents did not bring to the notice of this Court during the pendency of CWP No.15351 of 2010 that name of the present petitioner appeared in the list of eligible applicants much above the name of said Dharam Parkash, petitioner in that writ petition.

Another very surprisingly aspect of the matter is that the order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14) is shown to have been passed in compliance of order dated 27.09.2012 passed in CWP No.1209 of 2012 titled 'Dharam Parkash versus State of Haryana and others'.

Operative part of the said order has been reproduced at the out set and a perusal thereof shows that there is no direction for allotment of plot to aforesaid Dharam Parkash and the only direction was to treat the writ petition of petitioner- Dharam Parkash as a representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order.

Another very disturbing aspect of the situation is that Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -7- Plot No.834, Sector 47, Gurgaon, has been allotted to aforesaid Dharam Parkash even though stand of the respondents in paragraph 7 of order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14) is that no one-kanal plot was available in Sector 47, Gurgaon for being allotted to said Dharam Parkash.

A submission put up on behalf of the petitioner during the couRs.of arguments that said Dharam Parkash has been allotted a 1.5 kanal plot even though his entitlement for a one-kanal plot has not been controverted on behalf of the respondents.

At the same time, the representation made by the petitioner has been disposed of vide order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P-15) saying that no plot could be allotted to him as according to the HUDA policy dated 12.03.1993, petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot in Sector 47, Gurgaon, only and, incidentally, in that sector no one-kanal plot is available.

This order has been passed in compliance of order dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-12) rendered in CWP No.19622 of 2012 titled as 'Balwan Singh versus State of Haryana and others'.

The order dated 03.10.2012, as reproduced in Annexure P-15, is to the following effect:- “Taking note of the facts of this case, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to respondent No.2 to decide representation (P7) filed by the petitioner and if the petitioner is found eligible for allotment of plot as per Policy contemplating allotment of plots to the oustees, the relief be granted to him forthwith.

Before passing any order, an opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner.

The needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

When the two ordeRs.i.e., orders dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-14) and 14.01.2013 (Annexure P-15) are read in Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -8- juxtaposition to each other, it comes out that the petitioner's case is is far better as compared to that of aforesaid Dharam Parkash in so far as in the list of eligible applicants (Annexure P-4) name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.1 and that of Dharam Parkash appears at Serial No.5.

In both the cases stand of the respondents has been that there is no one-kanal plot available for allotment in Sector 47, Gurgaon, and in both the cases direction of this Court is to dispose of their representations.

However, in the case of aforesaid Dharam Parkash, respondents have shown extra-ordinary and unprecedented magnanimity and have allotted him a 1.5 kanal plot in Sector 47, Gurgaon, even though he was entitled for a one-kanal plot only and, at the same time, representation of the petitioner has been rejected by saying that no one- kanal plot is available in Sector 47, Gurgaon, and claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for allotment of plot in any other sector.

This is sheer breach of the equality clauses enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Rather, the circumstances indicate that these clauses have been assassinated by the respondents to accommodate their blue eyed boy, i.e., Dharam Parkash, at the cost of the petitioner.

Action of the respondents, therefore, deserves the strongest possible deprecation.

Allotment of a plot has been denied to the petitioner in spite of the fact that as many as 05 one-kanal plots in Sector 38 and as many as 14, one-kanal plots in Sector 39 are available for allotment and, admittedly, land of the petitioner, which is part of one and the same acquisition, was acquired for development of Sectors 38 to 41 and 47, Gurgaon.

That being so, there should have been no difficulty in allotting a Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.1025 of 2013 -9- plot to the petitioner either in Sector 38 or in Sector 39, Gurgaon, as per his entitlement.

In view of the situation as hereinbefore depicted, the petitioner was entitled to allotment of plot, in preference to aforesaid Dharam Parkash, and the allotment of plot, to said Dharam Parkash by ignoring claim of the petitioner, would have been sufficient to cancel allotment in favour of the said Dharam Parkash but he being not before us, we refrain ourselves from passing an order adveRs.to his interest, more-so, the petitioner can be compensated by directing the respondents to allot a one-kanal plot to him either in Sector-38 or in Sector-39, Gurgaon.

In the consequence, we accept the writ petition, quash order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P-15) and direct the respondents to allot a one-kanal plot to the petitioner either in Sector-38 or Sector-39, Gurgaon, within two months from today, after taking his option as regards the sector.

The petitioner is also held entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be recovered from the officer responsible for allotment of a plot to aforesaid Dharam Parkash by ignoring better claim of the petitioner.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN) JUDGE JUDGE 27 08.2013 adhikari Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh