Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Estate Officer, Panchkula dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure P -15) in terms of the direction of this Court dated 3.9.2013 (Annexure P -13) to consider the matter afresh regarding cancellation of offer of allotment of an Industrial Plot.
(2.) LEARNED Estate Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners for the reason that the an offer to allot a plot was made to the petitioners of an industrial plot out of discretionary quota of the State Government. Such quota was withdrawn on 10.4.1989. Therefore, the cancellation of offer of allotment is legal and justified. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present petition. The petitioners were offered industrial plot measuring 2 kanals on 30.3.1983 on the recommendation of the Minister subject to approval of the project report by the Industrial Department. In pursuance of such offer, no letter of allotment was issued. Learned Estate Officer has found that offer of allotment could not be made merely on the recommendation of the Minister without any rule or policy. It is also found that the discretionary quota in respect of allotment of industrial plot does not exist at any point of time and the Minister was not competent to recommendation as there was no provision for allotment of industrial plot. Still further, the State Government has circulated on 10.4.1989 that applications received through former minister for allotment should outrightly be rejected and refund be made.
(3.) A Full Bench of this court in Anil Sabharwal Vs. State of Haryana and others, : 1997 (2) PLR 7, found that the allotment of residential plots by way of discretionary quota is illegal but allotments made in respect of certain categories were upheld. The allotment under the category to which the petitioner belongs was not within the exceptions carved out by the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra).;