Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and Iqbal Singh JJ.
Shashi Singla
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 16626 of 1997,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 1997
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1977 - SECTION 18(1)(B) - CANCELLATION OF PLOT - CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT - SUPPRESSION OF FACTS - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - FULL DISCLOSURE OF FACTS - BONA FIDES - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - WRIT JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the deemed cancellation of the plot allotted to her under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. She prayed that Annexures P.5 and P.6 issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, be quashed and the respondents be restrained from interferring with her possession over the plot.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner deliberately refrained from mentioning the fact that the draft sent by her in pursuance of memo Annexure P-1 dated 11.6.1987 was returned by the Estate Officer on 28.10.1987. She has also suppressed the fact that the allotment letter was actually issued on 7.3.1991 after 25% of the tentative price was deposited vide drafts dated 9.3.1990 and 21.11.1990. She has also conveniently refrained from mentioning that she has accepted the allotment vide letter dated 3.4.1991.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's conduct in suppressing facts from the Court disentitles her from getting any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioner's grievance against the deemed cancellation of the plot allotted to her under the discretionary quota is valid? 3. Whether the petitioner was deprived of her right to retain possession of the plot allotted to her on 7.3.1991 without notice and opportunity of hearing?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person who invokes the writ jurisdiction of the High Court must come with clean hands and must make true and candid disclosure of all the facts. No attempt should be made to pollute the pure fountain of justice by concealing the facts and by making an attempt to mislead the Court. 2. The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench in Anil Sabharwals case which stands affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of S.L.P. No. CC 4325 of 1997, decided on 7.5.1997. 3. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that she has been deprived of her right to retain possession of the plot allotted to her on 7.3.1991 without notice and opportunity of hearing, as the Court had issued general notice to all the affected parties and given them opportunity to represent their cases before the Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the deemed cancellation of the plot allotted to her under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. She has prayed that Annexures P.5 and P.6 issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, be quashed and the respondents be restrained from interferring with her possession over the plot.
2. Though the petitioner has not given complete facts, the record produced by Shri H.S. Chahar, shows that in the pursuance of the directions given by the then Chief Minister, Haryana, the Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department, wrote letter No. PS-CTP/87, dated 4.6.1987 to the Chief Administrator H.U.D.A. to take action for issuance of formal allotment letter in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No. 361, Sector 21-C, Faridabad. Vide memo No. ADA-HUDA-87/18808, dated 11.6.1987, the Chief Administrator asked the Estate Officer, H.U.D.A. Faridabad to issue letter of allotment on her depositing 25% of the tentative, cost of the plot at the rate of Rs. 263.12 per square meter. On receipt of these directions, the Estate Officer wrote memo dated 23.6.1987 to the petitioner requiring her to deposit Rs. 28,540/- on or before 11.7.1987 and submit her affidavit along with 3 attested specimen signatures. However, before actual allotment could be made in favour of the petitioner, the State Government directed the cancellation of all allotments/offer of allotment made under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. In furtherance of this decision, the Estate Officer wrote letter dated 11.9.1987 to the petitioner conveying the cancellation of offer made to her. The demand draft sent by the petitioner was returned to her on 28.10.1987.
3. It is also borne out from the record that the policy decision taken by the Government to cancel the allotment made under the discretionary quota was quashed by this court in S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 430. After the decision of the High Court, the Estate Officer wrote letter dated 20.5.1988 to the petitioner to furnish necessary information in the prescribed proforma and to file an affidavit. This the petitioner did on 28.8.1988. After about one-and a half year, the petitioner submitted draft dated 9.3.1990. Another draft dated 21.11.1990 was submitted by her to make up 25% of the tentative price of the plot. After receiving this amount, the competent authority issued letter of allotment dated 7.3.1991 and the petitioner conveyed her acceptance and remitted demand draft of Rs. 27,500/-. The possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner was handed over to her on 28.1.1997. However, in view of the Full Bench decision in Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 7 (F.B.), the Estate Officer wrote Annexure P-5 to the petitioner, about the deemed cancellation of the allotment made in her favour and asked her to seek refund of the amount deposited by her. Vide Annexure P-6, the Estate Officer-cum-Collector, H.U.D.A. issued notice to the petitioner Under Section 18(1)(b) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and asked her to hand over the possession of the plot.
4. The petitioner has challenged the cancellation of her plot on the following grounds:
(a) The allotment of plot made to her in 1987 cannot be treated as cancelled because the judgment in Anil Sabharwals case (supra) is confined to the allotments made under the discretionary quota on or after 31.10.1989.
(b) The action of the respondents seeking to dispossess her is violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to her before the cancellation of the plot.
5. The respondents have defended their action on the ground that the plot has been allotted to her on 7.3.1991 and not on 11.6.1987, as claimed by the petitioner. Their case is that the offer of allotment made in the year 1987 cannot be equated with the actual allotment of plot and no rig
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
