The main legal point established is that a petitioner filing a public interest litigation (PIL) must disclose credentials and personal motive, and disputes regarding gift deeds should be addressed between the donor and donee, not pursued through public interest litigation.

S.S. SARON, J.

CM No. 6275 of 2017

Civil miscellaneous application has been filed for placing on record notice dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure A-4) for adjudication of the review application.

2. Notice dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure A-4) attached with the Civil Misc. application is taken on record, subject to just exceptions.

3. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

RA No. 80 of 2017 (O&M)

4. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking review of the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.11874 of 2016. Along with the review application, CM No.2359 of 2017 has been filed seeking condonation of 38 days delay in filing the review petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner.

6. The applicant/petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the officials respondents to protect the State interest and not allow illegal transactions of sale of plots by labelling them as gift deeds and thereby causing financial loss to the State exchequer.

7. The case of the petitioner has been that the Haryana Urban Development Authority ('HUDA' - for short) makes allotments of plots to displaced persons whose lands had been acquired. Such persons are known as 'oustees'. These plots were allotted out of the oustees quota plots. The said allotment of plots to such oustees contain a condition that the allottee would not sell the plot for a period of five years. The allottees of such oustees plots in order to circumvent the said condition, execute gift deeds in favour of the persons to whom the plots were transferred and by doing so, the condition of prohibition for sale of plots for a period of five years was circumvented. This according to the petitioner caused huge financial loss of stamp duty to the State exchequer inasmuch as stamp duty to the extent of 25% of the value of the plot was paid, whereas in case of execution of a sale deed the stamp duty would be much more.

8. The matter was considered in terms of order dated 07.12.2016, the review of which is sought. It was noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition i.e. CWP No.15660 of 2015 raising a similar grievance. The said petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-12). It was directed that respondent No.5 in the said petition shall consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

9. The necessary speaking order has been passed by the Administrator, HUDA at Faridabad on 18.4.2016 (Annexure P-15). The operative part of the said order is as follows:-

"I have heard all the parties and examined the record, facts of the case and relevant documents. I agree with the argument advanced by allottee and transferee and as well as by ADA. As per definition of section 122 of Transfer of Property Act 1882, there is no restriction of execution of gift deed out of blood relation. The gift deed can be executed by a person in favour of any person out of love and affection without consideration. That as per HUDA policy only administrative charges are payable for transfer of plot on the basis of gift deed within blood relation. Whereas, in the present case three plots have been transferred after charging the transfer fee as well as administrative charges. Further as per allotment letter, there was restriction only for sale for a period of five years and there was no restriction with regard to gift deed in the allotment letter. The transfer of above said three plots has been done rightly and legally on payment of transfer fee and administrative charges and the same does not want any interference. That no documentary proof regarding payment of consideration amount in lieu of the execution of the gift deed was produced by the complainant/petitioner or any other person/PNB, Faridabad. Hence, the complainant failed to proof the allegations of sa