Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 142
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar And Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Aayush Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2833-2834 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 672- 673 of 2011)
Decided On : 25-02-2014
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere duly making application does not confer any right for allotment of plot. Requisite criteria have to be fulfilled.
Headnote:Property Laws – Allotment of plats by HUDA – Appellant’s earnest money refunded – Without giving any reason – Its right for allotment not crystallized – Allotment cannot be directed – HUDA directed to consider appellant’s case for allotment if it fulfills all criteria laid down by HUDA in the process of allotment. (Para 11)
(2008) 8 SCC 658; (2008) 16 SCC 405; (2006) 10 SCC 96; (2001) 4 SCC 359; (2011) 14 SCC 354 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
In response to an advertisement by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for allotment of freehold institutional plots for Corporate Offices, R&D Centres, Corporate Towers and Staff Training Institutes in Sectors 18, 32 and 44 of Gurgaon, the appellant duly applied for a half an acre plot in accordance with the said advertisement.
After an interview the earnest money was refunded to giving without giving any reason.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant’s case can be considered if it fulfils criteria of HUDA.
JUDGMENT
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. –
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the present appellant -- Aayush Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. -- against the final order dated March 13, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.9962 of 2007 which was disposed in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 7790 of 2007 titled “Delhi Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.” and the order dated March 30, 2009 dismissing the review petition being Review Application No. 132 of 2008 in CWP No. 11501 of 2007.
3. The question which came up before this Court, as pressed by the appellant, is whether on the basis of a comparative analysis, the appellant was eligible to have allotment of a plot in its favour, and further while setting aside the process for allotment of plots, can it direct the process afresh allowing the ineligible candidates/parties to participate in the said fresh process.
4. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :-
1. In January/February 2006, the respondent-authority (Haryana Urban Development Authority) issued an advertisement for allotment of freehold institutional plots for Corporate Offices, R&D Centres, Corporate Towers and Staff Training Institutes in Sectors 18, 32 and 44 of Gurgaon. The appellant obtained the brochure and duly applied for a half an acre plot in accordance with the said advertisement. The earnest money of Rs. 27,75,000/- by way of a demand draft and the project report of the appellant were duly submitted.
2. The respondent-authority duly conducted interviews of 371 applicants and on June 9, 2006, the appellant duly appeared in an interview for such allotment before the authority in terms of letter dated June 1, 2006. By letter dated September 22, 2006, the earnest money of the appellant was refunded without giving any reasons therefor.
3. The allotments made were challenged before the High Court in CWP No. 17138 of 2006 by M/s. Sigma Corporation India Ltd., notice was issued on October 31, 2006 and interim stay was granted. Subsequently, said CWP No.17138 of 2006 was allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated October 3, 2007 in an application being Civil Misc. No.15033 of 2007 in CWP No.17138 of 2006.
4. It appears that Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd., an applicant for such allotment, which had filed CWP No. 7790 of 2007, also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the allotments made by the said authority. Since no reply was received within the time prescribed under the Act, the said applicant moved the Central Information Commission on March 14, 2007 and subsequently, by letter dated May 7, 2007, the respondent-authority provided the requisite information, admitting that no report/comments were given by the Committee regarding the individual application for such allotment. The appellant found discrepancies in the allotment and duly asked for the information under the RTI Act, with regard to the profiles of the companies which were allotted plots in Sector 32 of Gurgaon.
5. Being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent-authority, the appellant filed CWP No. 9962 of 2007 before the High Court. The said CWP was disposed of by order dated March 13, 2008 along with the writ petitions in terms of a common order passed in CWP No. 7790 of 2007 in Delhi Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.
6. The High Court in its judgement dated March 13, 2008, observed that no pre-determined criteria was published nor terms and conditions which were to apply to the allotments were made known to the applicants, and that the guidelines framed by the Committee regarding the allotments were also not kept in mind and no reasons have been highlighted for adopting the allotment method over the method of sale by auction. Thereby, the Court held that :
“We are further of the view that the so called selection committee failed to advert to the comparative merits of the applicants and it has
