Deciding Authority: Supreme Court
Briefly, the facts of the case are:
The second respondent i.e. the Haryana Urban Development authority laid out an advertisement for allotment of two hospital spots, one in sector 23-A and one in sector 51, Gurgaon giving them a deadline.In response to the said advertisement, the appellant applied for the hospital plot in Sector 51 on 28.6.2005. The fifth respondent applied on 15.6.2005 (said to have been received by the HUDA on 27.6.2005) for allotment of the hospital plot in Sector 23A, stating that if they were not allotted the plot in Sector 23A, their application may be considered for allotment of the plot in Sector 51.
TheĀ advertisement required the applicants to apply for allotment in the form prescribed in the advertisements. While the application of fifth respondent dated 15.6.2005 for the plot in Sector 23A was in the prescribed form, the subsequent letter dated 18.7.2005 seeking allotment of the plot in Sector 51 was not an application in the prescribed form, but was only a request letter. After considering the applications, HUDA allotted the plot at Sector 51 to the fifth respondent. The appellant was not allotted any plot. The plot at Sector 23A was not allotted to any one.’
In pursuance of such allotment, the fifth respondent obtained sanction of a building plan on 25.4.2006 and completed the construction of hospital building in July, 2007. A deed of conveyance dated 19.7.2007 was executed in favour of the fifth respondent in regard to the plot at Sector 51. The fifth respondent’s hospital is stated to be functioning in the plot at Sector 51, from 2007 itself.
A writ was filed in pursuance of this by the appellant of unjust allotment of plot.
Contentions by Appellant:
The appellant contends that the application for allotment by the fifth respondent was in regard to the hospital plot in Sector 23A and the letter given on 18.7.2005 could not be considered as an application for allotment of plot at Sector 51. It was submitted that HUDA ought to have allotted the plot at Sector 23A to fifth respondent and plot at Sector 51 to the appellant as per their respective applications. It was contended that by allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent even though its application was for allotment of plot at Sector 23A, HUDA committed an irregularity, thereby denying the appellant to its legitimate claim for allotment of a plot.
Contentions by Respondents:
Learned counsel for the State and HUDA submitted that a fresh advertisement was issued in the newspapers on 7.7.2005 extending the date for making applications till 20.7.2005 and the application dated 18.7.2005 given by fifth respondent sought allotment of the plot in Sector 51 and therefore the fifth respondent was an applicant for the plot at Sector 51 also. The fifth respondent submitted that it had applied for the alternative plot, that is plot at Sector 51 in pursuance to the re-advertisement on 7.7.2005 and therefore the allotment was legal.
Judgement:
Having regard to the fact that the appellant had made a valid application for allotment and it was improperly rejected on account of HUDA allotting the plot applied for by the appellant to the fifth respondent (even though its application was for a different plot), HUDA may consider the request of the appellant for allotment of the hospital plot at Sector 23A on such terms as it deems fit, as per its rules and regulations in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed off in favour of the Appellant.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS