Applicant Can't Challenge Allotment Under Housing Scheme After Unsuccessfully Participating In Draw Of Lots: Punjab & Haryana HC

While dismissing a plea challenging allotment of flats in a scheme overseen by HUDA Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that an unsuccessful participant in a draw of lots under a housing scheme cannot challenge the allotment of houses after participating in the process, as he will be estopped from doing so. 

A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "Moreover also, when the present petitioner also unsuccessfully participated in the draw of lots, therebys he becomes estopped to contend that there was any illegality in the passing of the minutes...in the meeting... wherebys vis-a-vis the surrendered/withdrawal membership of...thus an apt decision was taken to allot the same to the other eligible person."

The plea was filed by one Dinesh Kumar challenging the allocation and regularization of Super Deluxe flats, alleging the actions were arbitrary and illegal. He sought quashing a September 14, 2021 decision taken in the meeting, where HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning, Scheme-II, Faridabad, Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO, respondent No. 2) allocated the membership of a Super Deluxe category flat to respondent No. 3–who is the Managing Director of HEWO, on preferential basis. 

He also sought quashing of a July 25, 2023 decision taken by HEWO in its meeting, regularizing the purported illegal allocation of membership of Super Deluxe category flat to respondent No. 4 one Puran Chand. 

The petitioner, eligible under revised rules, applied for a Super Deluxe flat in a housing scheme by HUDA, Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning, Scheme-II, Faridabad, Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO).

It was submitted that despite his eligibility, the flat was allotted on a preferential basis to the Managing Director of HEWO, who had not completed the required six months on deputation, and later to another respondent, who was also ineligible due to a lower pay level.

The petitioner challenged these allotments, alleging favoritism and irregularities, particularly the decision to regularize the allotments despite clear ineligibility.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allotments of Super Deluxe flats to the respondents, and the subsequent regularization, are illegal, arbitrary, and violate eligibility criteria, the advertisement, HEWO's rules, and principles of natural justice.

It was argued that Respondent No. 4, was ineligible, and criteria were changed mid-process to favor him. Respondent No. 3 was also ineligible as he had not completed six months on deputation. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "the society nomenclatured as HEWO, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, wherebys any dispute relating to the subjects embodied in the bye-laws, memorandum of association or in the appositely drawn charter delineating the objects and purposes of the society, but would be resolvable through the remedy of arbitration, as envisaged in the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012". 

The Court however added that since public property is involved, the High Court has jurisdiction to examine whether fairness and transparency were maintained. It said that the Court is not required to either adjudge the purpose of the registration of the society, nor is required to be adjudging whether any public property which otherwise is required to be distributed to all concerned, rather even those who are not the members of the society, thus has been purportedly distributed in an unreasonable and unfair manner. 

The Court found that the flat was allotted to respondent No. 3 only after cancellation/surrender by another member, and the process was transparent.

"As such, when therebys it was known to all, that only upon withdrawal/surrendering of membership of the super deluxe category flat, by one Mr. Makrand Pandurang, IAS, therebys the same becoming decided to be allocated to respondent No. 3," it added.

The bench said, Moreover, since respondent No. 4 was allocated membership of Super Deluxe category flat of HEWO Scheme-II, through the impugned letter  "Therefore, the said condition enjoys an aura of transparency, wherebys pursuant to the relevant cancellation and surrender of membership being made by Mr. Makrand Pandurang, IAS, the said flat became aptly allotted to respondent No. 3."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the order