C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011
Date of Decision: 05.08.2013
Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.
Petitioner in the instant writ petition, under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to
direct the respondents to deliver to him possession of Plot No.126, Sector
R-II at Model Town Kalanwali, District Sirsa, as per the size given in the
letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure P-1).
Facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the
petitioner was allotted a residential plot bearing No.126, Sector R-II at
Model Town Kalanwali, District Sirsa, measuring 20 X 5.50 = 110 Square
Meters, vide letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure P-1) but
when physical possession of the plot was given to him, vide possession
certificate dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-2), size of the plot was found to
be 15.75 X 8.50, i.e., 86.625 Square Meters (hereinafter referred to as
‘the plot in question’). Several representations made by the petitioner,
on having remained unsuccessful, he served upon the respondents a legal
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -2-
notice dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-3). This notice also failed to evoke
response from the respondents leaving the petitioner with no option but
to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of the instant
writ petition.
A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.2 and 3, the only contesting respondents, wherein facts as stated
above, have been admitted but it has been added that allotment of the
plot in question was made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of
drawing No.677 dated 15.11.1998, wherein area of the plot was shown as
110 Square Meters but at the time of approval of the layout plan on
24.03.2006, the area of the plot was found to be 86.625 Square Meters
and accordingly, possession of that plot measuring 86.625 Sq. Meters was
delivered to the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a plot of the size
of 20 X 5.50 square meters or say measuring 110 Square Meters having
been allotted to him, vide letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure
P-1) and he, having deposited the requisite amount, i.e., 25% of the cost
of the plot, the respondents are duty bound to deliver possession of a plot
of the size of 110 Square Meters to him.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the other hand, have exhibited
their inability to accede to demand of the petitioner in view of the fact
that, on demarcation, the area of the plot was found to be 86.625 square
meters and possession of that plot has been delivered to the petitioner.
A perusal of letter of allotment dated 15.05.2003 (Annexure
P-1) reveals that it was clearly stipulated therein that the area of the plot
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -3-
was tentative and it was subject to adjustment in accordance with the
actual measurement at the time of delivery of possession. Petitioner
accepted the letter of allotment with open eyes and, as such, cannot be
heard to say that possession of 110 Square Meters plot only is to be
delivered to him. It is the definite plea of the respondents that in the
drawing No.677 dated 15.11.1998, area of the plot in question was
shown as 110 Square Meters and on its basis it was so mentioned in the
letter of allotment but when the area was demarcated for the purpose of
approval of the drawing, the plot in question was found to be measuring
86.625 square meters. The petitioner has accepted possession of that
plot having size of 86.625 Square Meters, vide certificate of possession
(Annexure P-2) without any objection or reservation. It would be
apposite to refer to certificate of possession (Annexure P-2), which gives
demarcation of the plot of 15.75 X 8.50 Meters or say 86.625 Square
Meters. The petitioner has made the following endorsement on the said
letter of possession:-
“I Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Parkash Chand the allottee
have taken the possession of the Plot No.126 Sector R-2
Urban Estate M.T. Kalanwali as per above dimensions allotted
to me vide Estate Officer HUDA allotment letter No.4449
dated 15/05/03.
I undertake to follow the conditions as laid down in the
allotment letter, Provisions of HUDA Act, 1977, and HUDA
(Erection of Building) Regulation 1979 with the latest
amendments.
Further I have seen the plot and agree to accept the
possession. I will given at least one week notice to the Estate
Officer before actually starting the construction.”
In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.1660 of 2011 -4-
around and say that he is entitled to possession of the plot of size of 110
Square Meters, only.
In spite of this, vide order dated 21.05.2013 passed by this
Court, counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought time to seek
instructions if an alternative plot could be allotted to the petitioner but on
16.07.2013, he expressed inability of the aforesaid respondents to deliver
possession of an alternative plot. However, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 stated that the said respondents are ready to
adjust the excess price paid by the petitioner.
In these circumstances, no mandate can be issued to the
respondents to deliver possession to the petitioner of a plot measuring
110 square meters but the respondents are directed to calculate the
excess amount paid by the petitioner and refund the same to the
petitioner along with interest, as per extant rules, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
05.08.2013
adhikari
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.08.19 15:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
