Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.: - C.M. No. 10232 of 2014:

Heard.

2. For the reasons elaborated during the course of hearing and submissions contained in the application, which is supported by affidavit, the applicant is found to have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for review.

3. Delay in filing the review application, therefore, is condoned and the application is, accordingly, disposed of.

C.M. No. 5279 of 2015:

4. Heard.

5. Reply of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (‘HUDA’ for short), Panchkula is taken on record.

6. Application is disposed of.

C.M. No. 5182 of 2015:

7. Heard.

8. Documents, Annexures A-2 to A-10, are taken on record.

9. Application is disposed of.

R.A. - C.W. 442 of 2014

10. In the year 2003, HUDA published an advertisement for allotment of residential plots in different Sectors of Panchkula, which included 10 plots of 14 marlas and 09 plots of 06 marlas in Sector 04, Mansa Devi Complex. In terms of policy of HUDA, 10% plots of General category were reserved for employees of Haryana Government, including employees of its Boards, Corporations, Municipal Corporations/Committees, Improvement Trusts and Cooperative banks etc. Applications from the oustees were also invited. The applicant, who was working as a lecturer in Government College, Panchkula, applied for allotment of a 14-marla plot being a Government employee, with requisite earnest money. Various oustees also applied for such allotments. However, in the draw of lots held on March 23, 2004 for allotment of residential plots of the size of 14 marlas in Sector 04, Mansa Devi Complex, out of 10 plots of 14 marlas, 08 were allotted to the oustees, who had a prior/preferential right. Since, the remaining plots were less than ten, no plot could be reserved for the Government servants. Another plot became available later on and a draw of lots in respect of three plots of general category was held wherein applications of of those who had applied under various reserved categories, including the applicant, were also included. The applicant, unfortunately, remained unsuccessful. By way of Civil Writ Petition No. 14232 of 2004, titled Virender Singh Malhan versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & others, applicant challenged the draw of lots held on March 23, 2004 for allotment of residential plots of the size of 14 marlas in Sector 04, Mansa Devi Complex, on the ground that his application was not considered against the 10% quota reserved for Government servants and 14-marla plots could not be allotted to the oustees, therefore, the draw of lots was illegal.

11. In the written statement, HUDA came out with a plea that quota reserved for Government servants and others was to be considered after satisfying the claims of eligible oustees who had a preferential right for allotment of plots under policy of HUDA and in the instant case eight, out of ten 14-marla plots, were allotted to the oustees and after satisfying claims of the oustees only two plots were left. Another plot became available later on and as, such, no 10% reservation was possible but name of the applicant was considered alongwith applicants of general category. It was also stated in the written statement that an oustee entitled for allotment of a one kanal plot was entitled to apply for a smaller plot, say a 14-marla plot.

12. The Civil Writ Petition, after hearing, came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated September 18, 2013 by observing:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition as undisputedly the oustees whose land has been acquired, have a prior claim for allotment as per the HUDA policy, and after R.A. - C.W. 442 of 2014 in C.W.P. No. 14232 of 2004 (O&M) 4 the allotment of the plot to the oustees the remaining plots is to be offered to the General category. Since, the remaining plots were three, there was no possibility for making 10% reservation for Government e