Arun Palli, J. - (1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash an order dated 17.08.1992 (Annexure P4), rendered by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon (respondent No. 4), vide which the residential site allotted to the petitioner was resumed and orders dated 12.12.1996 (Annexure P6) and 18.08.1997 (Annexure P11), whereby the appeal as also the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of resumption were dismissed.
(2.) A brief narration of facts that have led the parties to the current stage would be expedient.
(3.) Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), in the year 1984, invited applications for allotment of residential sites through draw of lots in Sector 22, Gurgaon. In terms of clause 11 of the brochure -cum -application form (Annexure P1), only those applicants were eligible to apply, who did not own a residential house/plot in Gurgaon Urban Estate in his/her name or in the name of any of their dependent family members. For, the petitioner as well as her husband were eligible to apply, they both sought allotment by moving two separate applications. Both were declared successful in the draw of lots held by the authorities. Plot No. 491/22 was allotted to Madhukar Shyam Gupta, husband of the petitioner, and a formal letter of allotment was issued to him on 11.09.1984. Petitioner too was allotted plot No. 177/22, but she could not be issued the allotment letter, for the allotted site was a subject matter of litigation. However, post settlement of the said dispute, a formal allotment letter dated 27.01.1989 (Annexure P2), was issued even to the petitioner. And, in terms of clause 11 of the brochure -cum -application form, she furnished an affidavit dated 22.02.1989 (Annexure P3) stating that she did not own any residential house/plot in her name or in the name of any of her dependent family members. But, subsequently respondent No. 4, vide memo dated 30.04.1990, asked the petitioner as also her husband to appear and clarify as to how they both were entitled to retain two separate residential plots. In response, petitioner and her husband appeared before the authorities and clarified that in terms of the eligibility clause set out in the brochure -cum -application form, they were eligible to seek allotment in their respective names. For, none was financially dependent on the other, both were income tax assessee, and running their separate businesses. But still, they were told to surrender one of the plots, for allotment to both the husband as also the wife was purportedly against the terms of allotment. Further, one family (husband/wife and dependent family members) could only be allotted one plot in a particular Urban Estate. And, vide order dated 17.08.1992, site allotted to the petitioner was resumed. Appeal preferred against the order of resumption was dismissed by the appellate authority, for in reference to the policy that existed in the year 1996 it was concluded that the petitioner could not retain the allotted site once her husband had already been allotted a plot in the same Urban Estate: "I have heard both the parties at length and examined the case carefully. Main plea of the appellant is that the affidavits furnished by the appellant and her husband are as per terms & conditions of application form/allotment letter. They are not dependent on each other because they are running their own business and both are regular Income Tax Assessee for the last 30 years, therefore, they are eligible to retain both the plots. Whereas the Deputy District Attorney on behalf of HUDA stated that the existing policy of HUDA does not allow a dependent family members and spouse to retain two plots. Having given a considered thought to the whole matter, I am of the opinion that though for the business purposes they (husband and wife) are separate income tax assessee but it is also fact that being a husband and wife they are member of one family and as per "Hindu Undivided Family Laws and as per HUDA policy a dependent family members and spouse can not retain two plots. Therefore, the resumption orders dated 17.8.92 passed by the E.O. HUDA Gurgaon are correct and as per policy of HUDA.";