AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a purely speculative litigation. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department through whom respondent No.1 has been impleaded and an e-auction notice by which a plot, claimed by the petitioner, is sought to be auctioned. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the amount as per a letter of allotment (LOA) dated 01.02.1991 on the basis that he is ready and willing to perform his obligations in terms thereof. The same prayer also seeks a direction to the respondents to decide his legal notice dated 28.03.2017.
The impugned order dated 28.11.2017 was passed by respondent No.1 in a revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 30(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. In the revision petition, the petitioner prayed for directions to be issued to treat/adjust the amount deposited by him pursuant to the interim orders of the Supreme Court
towards the cost of the plot in question and to regularise the allotment and execute a conveyance deed in respect of the plot in his favour. The impugned order dismissed the revision as not maintainable and permitted the petitioner to pursue his representation, if any, pending with the Chief Administrator of HUDA. From the prayers, which we have referred to, it is evident that petitioner seeks not merely the quashing of this order but also the allotment of the plot on the basis of the LOA dated 01.02.1991 . As we will demonstrate, the petitioner had, in fact, refused to accept the LOA and had challenged the same. The challenge failed and the matter had attained finality by virtue of an order passed by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the petitioner had sought the enforcement of the LOA before the Supreme Court but the application was rejected.
The petitioner had applied for a plot in the year 1984. The respondents, by a letter dated 21.07.1984/ 17.08.1984, offered him the said plot at a price of about Rs.6.20 lakhs. The offer required the petitioner to comply with various terms and conditions. The offer was, however, withdrawn. The petitioner''s appeal against that order was allowed on 19.07.1990 and the petitioner was granted 180 days to comply with the formalities stipulated in the letter of offer. The time to comply with these conditions was extended to 16.01.1991.
Admittedly, no contract was entered into between the parties pursuant to or in accordance with the said letter of offer dated 21.07.1984. The respondents thereafter issued the said allotment letter (LOA) dated 01.02.1991 allotting the said plot to the petitioner for the tentative price of about
Rs.37 lakhs and on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The entire allotment letter has not been annexed but we have been invited to proceed on the basis that the part which remained to be annexed is not material.
The petitioner filed CWP No.12486 of 1991 which was disposed of by an order and judgment of a learned single Judge dated 19.07.2011. From the judgment, it is clear that the petitioner contended that there was no need to issue fresh LOA dated 01.02.1991 at the enhanced price of about Rs.37 lakhs and that the petitioner had, in effect, challenged the same. In other words, the petitioner had not accepted the LOA dated 01.02.1991. The petitioner insisted upon being allotted the plot at the price of about Rs.6.20 lakhs stipulated in the letter of offer dated 21.07.1984/17.08.1984. It is important to note that the judgment concluded as follows:-
"The cancellation of allotment in terms of the allotment letter has to follow. The sole argument raised by the respondents is that the offer made in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner has not contradicted this plea in any manner. This offer had been made in the year 1984. The petitioner still was in the process of completing all the formalities when this offer was withdrawn. If the offer had not been withdrawn, there was no cause for the petitioner to approach Chief Administrator. The action of the respondents in demanding the price as indicated in the allotment letter cannot be faulted. Since the petitioner is not prepared to accept this offer, his prayer for allotment of the plot which will now fetch a fortune is neither fair nor justified and so cannot be accepted. There is a condition in the allotment letter issued to the petitioner for deposit of requisite amount which he has not complied. The only amount deposited by the petitioner was pursuant to the provisional letter of allotment. The petitioner took no action to comply with the conditions of the allotment letter. There is no case made either in equity or otherwise in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
From the above observations, it is important to note that the offer made in 1984 had been withdrawn. The petitioner today rightly does not even seek any rights on the basis of or pursuant thereto. The learned Judge further held that the action of the respondents in demanding the price as indicated in the fresh LOA on 01.02.1991 cannot be faulted. Having said that, the learned Judge noted: "Since the petitioner is not prepared to accept this offer, his prayer for allotment of the plot which will now fetch a fortune is neither fair nor justified and so cannot be accepted."
It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner had refused to accept the offer as contained in the LOA dated 01.02.1991. The judgment further notes that the conditions stipulated in the LOA dated 01.02.1991 had not been complied with. The petitioner had, therefore, clearly abandoned the right, if any he had, based on the LOA dated 01.02.1991. It is this LOA that the petitioner now seeks enforcement of.
The petitioner''s LPA No.2292 of 2011 against the said order and judgment was dismissed by an order and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 15.12.2011. This itself is sufficient to negate any right based on the LOA dated 01.02.1991. At this stage, in any event, enforcement of the LOA was not only not sought but rejected by the petitioner himself.
The petitioner challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court. The petitioner''s Special Leave to Appeal bearing No.1191-1192/2014 was dismissed by the following order of the Supreme Court dated 22.09.2014:-
"Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. The amount deposited by the petitioner with respondent
No.1 pursuant to this Court''s order dated 10.1.2014 and any amount deposit earlier shall be returned by respondent No.1 to the petitioner immediately and in no case later than two weeks."
The interim order dated 10.01.2014 referred to in the order is of vital importance. It was, however, not produced. The order was, however, downloaded by us and the same was put to Mr. Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The interim order reads as under:- "Mr. S.R. Singh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the terms of the fresh allotment letter (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner was intimated the tentative price of the plot at Rs.37,04,584.90. Mr. S.R. Singh further submits that Rs.1,61,693/- has already been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent - Authority and two demand drafts (one for Rs.15,42,892.00 and the other for Rs.20,00,000.00) in the name of The Estate Officer HUDA 1 Gurgaon are with him and shall be deposited with the respondent - Authority within two days from today.
Subject to the petitioner depositing the amount of Rs.35,42,892/- as per the two demand drafts with the respondent - Authority within two days, issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petitions, returnable in eight weeks.
Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process is permitted."
We are informed that pursuant to the interim order dated 10. 01.2014, the petitioner had deposited about Rs.37 lakhs which the Supreme Court directed the respondents to refund.
From the interim order dated 10.01.2014, it is apparent that before the Supreme Court the petitioner sought to have the plot allotted on the basis of the LOA dated 01.02.1991. The SLP was, however, finally dismissed and the Supreme Court directed the amount deposited to be refunded to the petitioner.
Clearly, therefore, the petitioner''s attempt to seek the allotment of the plot on the basis of the letter dated 01.02.1991 failed before the Supreme Court. Even if that was not so, it would make no difference. It would only mean that at the interim stage the petitioner sought the enforcement of the LOA dated 01.02.1991 but when the SLP was finally taken up for hearing, the petitioner abandoned the same. Thus, either way the petitioner has no case on the basis of the LOA dated 01.02.1991.
Faced with this, Mr. Sharma relied on a status report of the respondents'' website. The website, apparently, still refers to the LOA dated 01.02.1991 and shows Rs.1.41 crores to be the outstanding amount. The mere fact that the website contains these particulars does not create any right in favour of the petitioner who had, at one stage, admittedly, rejected the LOA dated 01.02.1991 and subsequently sought to have the same implemented unsuccessfully. The website not having been updated does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.