IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.607 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP [C] No.16796 of 2004)
RAJ DULARI ... Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ... Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant while working as a Superintendent in the
office of the Advocate-General, Haryana made applications
for allotment of a plot under the Government employees
quota in Sector 25, Panchkula and for allotment of a plot
under the general category in Sector 26, Panchkula. The
Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), by letter dated
14.11.1994 informed her that she had been selected for
allotment of Plot No. 817 in Sector 26 under the general
category in the draw of lots held on 31.10.1994. HUDA also
selected her for allotment of a plot (No. 946 in Sector 25)
under the Government employees quota.
2
3. As a person could not have allotment of more than one
plot, the appellant opted for retaining the allotment of
Plot No. 817 (Sector 26) under the general category, and
sent a letter dated 10.3.1995 requesting for cancellation
of proposed allotment of Plot No. 946 (Sector 25) under the
Government employees quota.
4. HUDA, by letters dated 4.4.1995, called the appellant
for a hearing and verification of documents, stating that
she could not have more than one plot. Subsequently, HUDA
cancelled the general category allotment of Plot No. 817
(Sector 26) as per communication dated 20.12.1995, on the
ground that the appellant is not eligible for two plots and
refunded the sum of Rs.20,500/- which had been deposited as
earnest money for the said plot. The appellant accepted the
cancellation of allotment of Plot No. 817 (Sector 26) being
under the impression that she will get Plot No. 946
(Sector 25) under the Government employees quota.
5. One of the requirements for confirmation of allotment
of plots under the Government employees quota was
production of an Integrity Certificate from the employer
within 90 days from the date of allotment (vide clause 10
(iii) of the Allotment Brochure). As a criminal case was
pending against the appellant, she could not get the
3
Integrity Certificate within 90 days. She obtained the
Integrity Certificate only on 4.8.2000, after the
conclusion of the criminal proceedings and submitted it to
HUDA on 21.8.2000. As allotment of Plot No. 946 was not
confirmed even thereafter, she approached the High Court
for relief in Civil Writ Petition No. 11208 of 2003. The
High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that
the appellant, not having produced the Integrity
Certificate within 90 days from the date of allotment, was
not entitled to the plot. The said order is under
challenge in this appeal by special leave.
6. As noticed above, the appellant was allotted plots
both under the general category and Government employees
quota. The cancellation of allotment under general
category, was on the assumption that appellant was allotted
plot No.946 (Sector 25) under government employees quota.
If appellant was not entitled to allotment under government
employees quota, she was entitled to the allotment of Plot
No.817 under the general category and that could not have
been cancelled. The appellant accepted the cancellation of
general category selection of Plot No. 817 (Sector 26), as
she believed that she would get Plot No. 946 (Sector 25)
under Government employees quota. In fact, as per the
rules, only persons who already have a plot in an Urban
4
Estate or a confirmed allotment, are not eligible for a
second plot. If the appellant was not eligible for
allotment of Plot No. 946 under Government employees quota,
she could not have been denied allotment of Plot No. 817
under general category. Be that as it may.
7. On the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may not be
just to deny the plot to the appellant, inspite of having
been allotted plots, both under the general category and
under the Government employees quota. In the circumstances,
we are of the view that the HUDA should accept the belated
production of Integrity Certificate and confirm the
allotment of Plot No. 946 (Sector 25) to the appellant. We
may however make it clear that in view of the delay on the
part of the appellant in production of Integrity
Certificate, HUDA will be entitled to charge for the plot,
the price prevailing on 21.8.2000 (the date of production
of such certificate) instead of the allotment price
applicable in 1994-95.
8. We accordingly allow this appeal and direct the HUDA
to allot Plot No. 946 (Sector 25), Panchkula, under the
Government employees quota subject to payment by the
appellant, the price applicable as on 21.8.2000. This
5
decision shall not be treated as a precedent as the
direction is on the special facts of this case.
_________________J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; _________________J.
January 30, 2009. (J M Panchal)