The court held that decisions by a governing body must be honored in flat allotment processes, emphasizing fairness and reasonable treatment in public property distribution.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the letter dated 13.4.2021 (Annexure P-19), wherebys the respondents concerned, have invited applications for two flats of Super Deluxe category, for allotment(s) thereofs to the retired/serving Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (for short the HSVP'} employees. Furthermore, the petitioner also seeks a direction upon the respondent concerned, to implement the order/decision passed by the respondents concerned, in the governing body meeting held on 8.1.2018, whereins, it was decided to allot one Super Deluxe category flat, to the petitioner, on availability of very first surplus flat of Super Deluxe category during the re-planning.

Brief facts of the case

2. It is averred in the instant petition, that the respondents concerned, got registered a society in the name and style of HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning, Scheme-II, Faridabad, Employees Welfare Organization (for short HEWO'). The Memorandum of Organization and Rules and Regulations of the HE WO became published. The respondents concerned, floated various schemes for allotment of the flats/houses to their employees. Vide letter dated 9.2.2005 (Annexure P-2), the respondents concerned, invited applications for enrollment of new members under the 2nd scheme of HEWO from the employees of HUDA for allotment of flats at Faridabad. Since at that time, the petitioner was serving as Estate Officer, HUDA-cum-SDO (Civil), Bhiwani, as such, he was eligible for the membership of respondent No. 3, and, hence he applied for a flat in Super Deluxe category, and, on 19.2.2005, deposited Rs. 1,98,500/- as earnest money. It is further averred that on 6.4.2005, respondent No. 3 issued a letter to the petitioner stating thereins that he was not eligible for Super Deluxe category flat in the HEWO, Scheme-II, Faridabad, rather was eligible for the Deluxe category. Thereupon, on 12.4.2005, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 3 to consider him in the category for which he was eligible. On 22.7.2005, respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to the petitioner that he has been declared successful in the draw of lots, held on 18.6.2005 for Deluxe category, and, was allotted Membership No. B-11203. Subsequently on 27.4.2010, the petitioner received another communication by the respondent concerned, stating thereins that the petitioner has only got membership, and, at that stage, the land of the society was under Forest Act and case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3. It is further averred, that in the meantime, the respondent kept on allotting the membership to the employees of HUDA. When the petitioner came to know, he wrote a letter to the respondent concerned on 17.3.2011 that he be also considered in the Super Deluxe category. On 1.4.2011, the respondent concerned, sent reply that the case of the petitioner shall be put in the next meeting of governing body.

4. On 12.2.2014, the respondents concerned, conveyed to the petitioner that an alternate site in Sector-10, Faridabad was allotted to respondent No. 3-HEWO in lieu of the earlier site of Sector-21, Faridabad. Subsequently on 12.1.2015, the respondents conveyed to the petitioner, that a new alternative site in Sector-76, Faridabad, in lieu of site in Sector-10, Faridabad was allotted to respondent No. 3-HEWO. The petitioner sent repeated reminders to put his case in the meeting of governing body. Subsequently, in the meeting of the governing body held on 24.11.2017, the demand of the petitioner was not accepted as no vacancy in the Super Deluxe category