Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner had applied for 10 marlas plot in Sector 23, 23 -A (Part -II), Gurgaon. The Petitioner was allotted plot No. 2160 through letter dated 08.03.1988/29.02.1988. Copy of the allotment letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure P -1. Soon thereafter, the Petitioner was informed that plot No. 2160 allotted to the Petitioner was subject matter of litigation and was held up due to stay granted by the Court. The Petitioner was also informed that allotment letter will be sent after vacation of stay. The total value of the plot at that time was Rs. 52,080/ - at the rate of Rs. 236.73 paise per sq. meter. The Petitioner made a request for issuance of allotment letter by filling representations. On 25.10.1989, the Petitioner received a communication that plot No. 1910, Sector 23, 23 -A was allotted to him in lieu of plot No. 2160 on account of draw held on 21.08.1989. He was informed that the allotment letter for the same would be issued after complying with the necessary formalities. Still the Respondents failed to issue allotment letter to the Petitioner. Process of filing representations again commenced and the Petitioner filed numerous representations on 06.01.1990, 06.12.1990, 29.01.1991, 14.02.1991 and 03.04.1991. Copies of all these representations have been annexed with the petition. Allotment letter still was not issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner even paid a personal visit to the office of HUDA but every time only to return with assurance that the needful be done very shortly.
(2.) ON 04.06.1991, the Petitioner received a copy of letter addressed to Respondent No. 1 to consider the application for allotment of plot in Sector 23, 23 -A or in Sector 31 and 32 -A. The Petitioner found that plot No. 1910, which was earlier allotted to him, was in possession of HUDA and was free from all kinds of litigation. The Petitioner, thus, claimed that he was entitled to get possession of the same and was willing to deposit the balance amount of instalment at the rate of Rs. 236.73 paise per sq. meter. The Petitioner made a representation in this regard but still nothing happened. The ultimate grievance of the Petitioner is that he did not receive any alternative offer in view of plot No. 1910 allotted to him, which was free from all kinds of litigation. The Petitioner, accordingly, made a claim for allotment of this plot to him at the original rate as published at the time of filing the application. As per the Petitioner, the action of HUDA in not allotting the allotment letter to the Petitioner is illegal, void, harsh, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. The Petitioner also filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed on the ground that Forum had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue mandamus to the Respondents to give possession of plot No. 1910 already allotted to him and requiring the Petitioner to deposit a specified sum of balance of price on completion of other formalities.
(3.) REPLY on behalf of the Respondent/HUDA has been filed. It is conceded that the Petitioner had applied for allotment of 10 marlas plot in Sector 23, 23 -A, Gurgaon. It is further stated that no allotment letter was issued to the Petitioner rather it is pointed out that plot No. 1910, Sectors 23, 23 -A was earmarked in the name of the Petitioner in the draw of lots held on 21.08.1989. It is urged that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the allotment letter, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order. The benefit of allotment of plot in the original sector has to be given and is confirmed to only those, who had initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the High Court to challenge the non -allotment of plots. It is then pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that in case of those who have not chosen to question the non -allotment of plots to them, they will not be allowed to do so in future. Further directions were that the HUDA will receive 50% more price in addition to the original price. As per the HUDA, the Petitioner neither approached this Court or the Supreme Court and, thus, is not entitled to get even the aforesaid relief granted to the original allottees. Accordingly, the claim of the Petitioner is contested on this ground.;