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.  

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

2

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

3

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

4

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)

5