LexAAYUSH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 181 MYUSH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2833-2834 of 2014) FEBRUARY 25, 2014 [SURINDER SINGH NtJJAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Urban Development: A B c Allotment of institutional plots - Discrepancies in allotment process.- High Court setting aside the allotments made - Held: Appellant was an unsuccessful party i[l the initial allotment, which was set aside by High Court, but it did not give any right to appellant to claim allotment as a matter of D right - Therefore, when no right arises to an applicant in a vitiated/cancelled allotment procedure, a subsequent claim for allotment depends upon factual circumstances of each case - The right of appellant has not been crystallized -- Appellant has to comply with the process followed by HUDA E for allotment of plots. The appellant, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority, applied for a half an acre freehold institutional plot and submitted a demand draft for earnest money of F Rs. 27,75,000/- along with the project report. The respondent-authority conducted interviews of 371 applicants including the appellant. By letter dated 22-9- 2006, the earnest money of the appellant was refunded without giving any reasons therefor. The allotments made G were challenged before the High Court. The High Court identified certain discrepancies in the allotment process, and set aside the allotments made to the private respondents. The SLPs were disposed of by the 181 H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A Supreme Court on 29.4.2011 and on the statement of the Additional Solicitor General, respondent no. 1 was directed to allot a plot to Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. 8 In the instant appeal the question for consideration before the Court was: whether on the basis of a comparative analysis, the appellant was eligible to have allotment of a plot in its favour, and further while setting aside the process for allotment of plots, could the Court direct the process afresh allowing the ineligible C candidates/parties to participate in the said fresh process. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The appellant was an unsuccessful party 0 in the initial allotment. It is not disputed that the earnest money deposited by it was also refunded. The initial allotment was also set aside by High Court by judgment' dated 13.3.2008, but the same did not give any right to the appellant to claim allotment as a matter of right. E Therefore, when no right arises to an applicant in a vitiated/cancelled allotment procedure, a subsequent claim for allotment may or may not succeed, depends upon the factual circumstances of each case. [para 7-8] [189-F-G; 190-E] F Manjul Srivastava vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (12) SCR 903 = 2008 (8) SCC 652; Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Sadhu Ram, 2008 (6) SCR 43 = (2008) 16 sec 405 -- relied on. G A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society 2006 Suppl. 1 SCR 102 = (2006) 10 sec 96; Industrial Assistance Group, Goverment of Haryana & Anr. vs. Ashutosh Ahluwalia & Anr. (2001) 4 SCC 359; U. G. Hospitals (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2011) 14 SCC 354 - referred H to. AAYUSH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. v. HARYANA URBAN 183 DEVELOPMENT AUTH. 1.2 In SLP [CJ Nos.10818-23 of 2008 - Haryana Urban A Development Authority etc. vs. Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. & Ors. where this Court issued a direction to the Authority to allot a plot to Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. since the Additional Solicitor General, on instructions, conceded to the effect that half B an acre plot shall be made available to Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd., the said order was passed on concession granted on behalf of HUDA. But the respondent did not agree to concede it to that extent in the instant case. Accordingly, there is a distinction in the c situation. (para 10] (191-E-H; 192-A] 1.3 The right of the appellant has not been crystallised. No right can be conferred on the appellant, granting allotment as has been prayed. The appellant has to comply with the process followed by HUDA to allot D plots in favour of the allottees and, if the appellant, on its taking steps, fulfils all the criteria laid down by HUDA in the process of allotment, HUDA shall consider its case for such allotment. [para 11] (192-B-C] E Case L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.