M.M.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot an alternative plot under discretionary quota of Chief Minister at Gurgaon. It is claimed that plot has already been allotted to her in the draw of lots held on 24.4.2003. A further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 9.6.2006, issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula-respondent No. 2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot.
(2.) IT is appropriate to mention that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 260 : (1997)2 PLR 7, has struck down the discretionary quota allotment of plots made to few favourites. The matter travelled to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in the case of Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 450 : (2001)9 SCC 550, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) has been held to be prospective as the earlier decision of this Court in the case of S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, (1988) 1 PLR 430, was holding the field. It was held that the parties have regulated their rights in accordance with law as pronounced by the Division Bench in S.R. Dass's case (supra). It is further appropriate to mention that in Harsh Dhingra's case (supra) their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has fixed the cut off date of 23.4.1996 for saving the allotments of discretionary quota plot made earlier to the said date. In other words, all allotments which have been made on or before 23.4.1996 were to be saved but subsequent allotment letters were to be governed by the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) because on 23.4.1996 a comprehensive interim order was passed by this Court restraining the respondent State of Haryana from making allotment of plots under discretionary quota. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant petition are that on 29.12.1995 the petitioner was intimated by the Chief Administrator, HUDA that the Government was considering to allot her a residential plot measuring 10 marla in Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, out of discretionary quota, subject to certain conditions. One of the condition mentioned in the communication of the Chief Administrator was that the petitioner should not have owned any plot or house in Urban Estate Gurgaon in her name or in the name of her spouse or any of family member dependent upon her and an affidavit to that effect was required to be sworn forthwith. Accordingly, the petitioner sent an affidavit dated 9.1.1996 (P-2 Colly) affirming that she fulfilled all the conditions. On 25.1.1996 (P-3), the Chief Administrator sent her a communication stating that a residential plot out of discretionary quota of the Government would be allotted to her and a number of conditions were specified. After mentioning the tentative price of the plot and the schedule of payment in respect thereof, condition No. 6 specifically stipulated that formal letter of allotment intimating plot number was to be issued by the Estate Officer concerned on receipt of 25% amount and other required documents. The allotment was to be made subject to condition that it should not be transferred before expiry of three years. In the endorsement a direction was issued by the Chief Administrator to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, to allot her Plot No. 3176, measuring 10 marlas, in Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, after he had received the requisite amount and required documents under intimation to him. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 79,200/- on 9.2.1996 (P-4) by a bank draft dated 6.2.1996. However, before the allotment letter could be issued an inter-departmental correspondence ensued. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, addressed a letter to the Chief Administrator stating that Plot No. 3176, measuring 10 marlas, in Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, which was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner stood already allotted to another person, namely, Shri Manmohan Singh, on 31.1.1996 and, therefore, he solicited necessary guidance in that regard. Subsequently, on 10.6.1997, the petitioner was issued a letter stating that plot allotted to her out of Chief Minister's discretionary quota stood cancelled because of the pronouncement of judgment in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) by the Full Bench of this Court and the amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded vide letter dated 17.7.1997 (P-6 and P-7). However, after the judgment in Harsh Dhingra's case (supra), some correspondence between the Estate Officer, Gurgaon and the Chief Administrator, HUDA took place which indicates that the name of the petitioner for allotment of plot was being considered.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that no allotment letter bringing into existence a vested right to the petitioner has ever been issued to him. The plot which was earmarked for the petitioner could not be allotted to her and no allotment letter could be issued, which in fact, stood allotted to one Shri Manmohan Singh i.e. Plot No. 3176, Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Therefore, the respondents have submitted that in the absence of issuance of an allotment letter the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harsh Dhingra (supra), fixing the cut-off date of 23.4.1996.;