VIJENDER JAIN, J. - (1.) IN the aforementioned writ petitions, the petitioners, who are registered Cooperative Group Housing Societies, have challenged the allotment of plots made by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'the H.U.D.A.') to various Cooperative House Building Societies in Panchkula. Since, the principal challenge is to the procedure adopted by the H.U.D.A. for allotment of plots made pursuant to the Group Housing Scheme-2005 (hereinafter described as 'the Scheme') and there is only a slight variation in the facts pleaded therein, we propose to dispose of the writ petitions by this common judgment.
(2.) THE H.U.D.A. floated a Scheme for allotment of plots to the Cooperative Societies at various places in Haryana. The essential features of the Scheme, which have also become integral part of the challenge in these writ petitions are as follows :- "1. AVAILABILITY OF PLOTS (a) Only 1/2 acre, 1acre and 1-1/2 acre plots shall be allotted under this scheme. Two/three half acres plots shall be joined for allotment of 1 acre and 1-1/2 acres plots. The half acres (2000 sq. mts.) plots available for allotment are as under :- Sr. No. Name of U/E Number of plots General EWS Coop. Societies of Haryana and Central Govt employees Coop. Societies of Defenand Personnel and para Military forces. Welfare Housing Organisation of Haryana and Central Govt employees. Coop. Societies of Mps and MLAs 1. Panchkula 44* 27 4 7 2 2 2 2. to 7 ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Total 321 193 31 48 17 16 16 Notes : i) The numbers of plots and area are tentative. ii) The plots are not necessarily available in one sector/area. * This includes three plots of one acre category at Panchkula, one plot of one acre category at Gurgaon, two plots of one acre category at Faridabad and two plots of one category at Panipat." The rest of the Scheme is not necessary to be extracted here for the simple reason that there is no challenge in the writ petitions with regard to the eligibility, conditions and other aspects contained therein except for the procedure adopted by the H.U.D.A. in view of the availability of the plots. It would, however, be necessary to briefly advert to the facts of the writ petitions before proceeding to comment upon the challenge made by the petitioners. In this petition, the petitioners were the aspirants for 1/2 acre plots. They had applied against the plots reserved for the Cooperative Societies of Haryana and Central Government employees, which were seven in number. It is the case of the petitioners that even though they were successful in draw of lots, yet, no plot was allotted to them. The petitioner has averred that it had applied for 1-1/2 acre plot and its name was never considered against the category in which it had applied, even though as per the Scheme, there was a stipulation and there was also availability of such plots. The plea of the petitioner is that it had applied against this category expecting that there would be few applicants and there will be more chances of success for allotment. The requisite amount of Rs. 32,40,000/- was deposited by the petitioner and the same was accepted by the authorities of the H.U.D.A., but its name was not considered at the time of draw of lots. The petitioner, in this petition, has pleaded that it had applied for 1/2 acre plot and was declared successful against the category of 1 acre plots, but, was not given any plot even though the plots were available. The case of the petitioners is the similar to the one of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 14919 of 2006. The petitioner, in this case, was an aspirant for 1 acre plot, but was declared successful against the category of 1/2 acre plots and even this plot was not allotted to it. The challenge made in the writ petitions when encapsulated in brief is that the H.U.D.A. has resorted to arbitrary allotment as 1/2 acre plots were clubbed to make allotment of 1 acre and 1-1/2 acre plots to benefit some of the Cooperative Group Housing Societies which belong to its employees and the M.Ps./M.L.As. It has been pointed out that the Societies of the employees of the H.U.D.A. were the major beneficiaries as they had made multiple applications all over the State including Panchkula. Though this has not been specifically pleaded in the writ petitions, yet, at the time of arguments, it was urged before us that H.U.D.A., Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organisation (HEWO) had submitted forty two applications for Panchkula, twenty three for Sonepat, twenty three for Gurgaon and forty three for Faridabad and sixteen plots, in all, were allotted to it. To show that the governing body of HEWO consists of the high ranking officers of the H.U.D.A. and other departments, the petitioners have placed before the Court its Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. The governing body of HEWO, as per this document, is as follows :- Sr. No. Designation of the society Designation ex-officio Name of the officer presently holding the charge Address 1. Chairman C.A., HUDA-cum-D.T.C.P. Sh. R.K. Singh SCO-848, HUDA Manimajra. 2. General Secy. being Managing Director Controller of Finance/HUDA Sh. S.C. Kansal SCO-841, HUDA Manimajra. 3. Member A.D.U.E. Sh. I.D. Kaushik SCO-848, HUDA Manimajra. 4. Member C.T.P., Haryana Sh. J.C. Chopra Town and Country Plg.Deptt. Haryana, Sec.18, Chd. 5. Member C.T.P., HUDA Sh. B.P. Sinha SCO 61-68, HUDA Panchkula. 6. Member Secretary, HUDA Sh. V.B. Arora SCO 841, HUDA Manimajra. 7. Member C.E., HUDA Sh. H.G. Garg Chief Engineer, HUDA, Sec.8, Panchkula. 8. Member S.E., HUDA Sh. K.K. Bhugra S.E., HUDA, Gurgaon. 9. Member Sr. Architect Sh. M. Bhardwaj SCO 61-68, HUDA Panchkula. 10. Member Chairman Jt. Action Comtt. HUDA Employees Union. Sh. S.S. Sodhi Div. No. 2 11. Member D.T.P. Sonipat Sh. Rajbir Singh Town and Country Plg. Deptt. Sonipat 12. Member (Joint Sec.-cum-Treasurar) A.O.(HQ.) Sh. G.I. Sharma SCO-841, HUDA Manimajra From the above, the petitioners have tried to show that the H.U.D.A. had cornered major plots depriving the real aspirants of their right to get a plot.
(3.) THAT part, it has been submitted that clubbing of 1/2 acre plots resulted in reverse discrimination to the allottees of this category and once one specific category has been given in the Scheme, the allotment should have been considered separately qua each category and not in the manner which has been adopted by drawing lots from 1/2 acre plots and clubbing them thereby to make 1 acre and 1-1/2 acre plots.;