IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.804 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.8419 of 2009]

U.G.Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant

Vs.

State of Haryana & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard.

2. Haryana  Urban  Development  Authority  (‘HUDA’  for  

short),  the  second  respondent  herein,  issued  an  

advertisement in the newspapers dated 14th and 15th June,  

2005,  inviting  applications  for  allotment  of  a  hospital  

plot  measuring  12  acres  in  Sector  23A,  Gurgaon,  and  a  

hospital plot measuring 8.3 Acres in Sector 51, Gurgaon,  

from persons interested on or before 29.6.2005. In response  

to the said advertisement, the appellant applied for the  

hospital  plot  in  Sector  51  on  28.6.2005.  The  fifth  

respondent applied on 15.6.2005 (said to have been received  

by the HUDA on 27.6.2005) for allotment of the hospital  

plot in Sector 23A, stating that if they were not allotted  

1

the plot in Sector 23A, their application may be considered  

for allotment of the plot in Sector 51.

3. By re-advertisement dated 7.7.2005, the last date for  

submission of applications was extended upto 20.7.2005 with  

a  clarification  that  those  who  had  applied  earlier  in  

response to the advertisement dated 14/15.6.2005 need not  

apply  again.  The  fifth  respondent  gave  a  letter  dated  

18.7.2005 to HUDA stating that on physical verification it  

was found that the plot in Sector 23A was only 8.66 acres  

and not 12 acres and there was also some difficulties in  

regard  to  use  of  the  entire  plot  for  construction  and  

therefore,  their  application  may  be  considered  for  

allotment of the plot in Sector 51.

4. Both  the  advertisements  required  the  applicants  to  

apply  for  allotment  in  the  form  prescribed  in  the  

advertisements. While the application of fifth respondent  

dated  15.6.2005  for  the  plot  in  Sector  23A  was  in  the  

prescribed  form,  the  subsequent  letter  dated  18.7.2005  

seeking  allotment  of  the  plot  in  Sector  51  was  not  an  

application in the prescribed form, but was only a request  

letter. After considering the applications, HUDA allotted  

2

the  plot  at  Sector  51  to  the  fifth  respondent.  The  

appellant was not allotted any plot. The plot at Sector 23A  

was not allotted to any one.

5. In pursuance of such allotment, the fifth respondent  

obtained  sanction  of  a  building  plan  on  25.4.2006  and  

completed the construction of hospital building in July,  

2007. A deed of conveyance dated 19.7.2007 was executed in  

favour of the fifth respondent in regard to the plot at  

Sector 51. The fifth respondent’s hospital is stated to be  

functioning in the plot at Sector 51, from 2007 itself.

6. In April, 2007, the appellant filed a writ petition  

for quashing the allotment letter dated 27.9.2005 issued in  

favour of the fifth respondent in regard to allotment of  

the hospital plot at Sector 51 and seeking a direction to  

the HUDA and the State to allot the said plot at Sector 51  

in its favour. Alternatively the appellant prayed that the  

vacant hospital plot at Sector 23A may be allotted to it.  

The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by  

impugned order dated 1.12.2008, on the ground that there  

was  considerable  delay  in  filing  the  writ  petition  

challenging  the  allotment  in  favour  of  the  fifth  

respondent. The High Court also found that there was no  

3

irregularity  in  allotting  the  plot  in  Sector  51  to  the  

fifth  respondent.  It  held  that  the  appellant  who  had  

participated  in  the  process  of  allotment  without  

questioning the same, could not challenge the allotment in  

favour  of  the  fifth  respondent.  The  said  order  is  

challenged in this appeal by special leave.  

7. The  appellant  contends  that  the  application  for  

allotment  by  the  fifth  respondent  was  in  regard  to  the  

hospital  plot  in  Sector  23A  and  the  letter  given  on  

18.7.2005  could  not  be  considered  as  an  application  for  

allotment of plot at Sector 51. It was submitted that HUDA  

ought  to  have  allotted  the  plot  at  Sector  23A  to  fifth  

respondent and plot at Sector 51 to the appellant as per  

their  respective  applications.  It  was  contended  that  by  

allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent even  

though its application was for allotment of plot at Sector  

23A, HUDA committed an irregularity, thereby denying the  

appellant to its legitimate claim for allotment of a plot.  

It is further contended that when the application in the  

prescribed form by fifth respondent was for allotment of  

plot  at  Sector  23A,  there  was  no  justification  for  

allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent. It was  

4

submitted  that  the  appellant  fulfilled  the  

eligibility/preference  criteria  specified  in  the  

advertisement for allotment of the plot.   

8. Learned counsel for the State and HUDA submitted that  

a  fresh  advertisement  was  issued  in  the  newspapers  on  

7.7.2005 extending the date for making applications till  

20.7.2005  and  the  application  dated  18.7.2005  given  by  

fifth respondent sought allotment of the plot in Sector 51  

and therefore the fifth respondent was an applicant for the  

plot at Sector 51 also. The fifth respondent submitted that  

it had applied for the alternative plot, that is plot at  

Sector 51 in pursuance to the re-advertisement on 7.7.2005  

and therefore the allotment was legal.

9. Even though the application of fifth respondent for  

the plot at Sector 51 was not in the prescribed form, the  

allotment was made as long back as on 27.9.2005 and the  

fifth respondent has constructed and running the hospital  

even from 2007. The appellant filed the writ petition only  

on  2.4.2007,  nearly  one  and  a  half  years  after  the  

allotment.  In  the  circumstances,  the  High  Court  was  

justified in not interfering with the allotment that was  

5

made  to  the  fifth  respondent.  We  find  no  reason  to  

interfere with the decision of the High Court.  

10. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant  

submitted  that  though  there  were  several  applications,  

ultimately,  all  other  applications  were  withdrawn,  and  

there were only two applications for the two plots, that  

is,  appellant  for  hospital  plot  at  Sector  51  and  fifth  

respondent for hospital plot at Sector 23A. Learned counsel  

for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  plot  at  Sector  51  

having been allotted to the fifth respondent, HUDA ought to  

have at least allotted the plot at Sector 23A to appellant.  

The appellant submitted that it was ready and willing to  

accept the plot at Sector 23A on ‘as is where is basis’,  

irrespective of the site condition. It is also submitted  

that the alternative prayer for allotment of the plot at  

Sector 23A made in the writ petition, was not considered by  

the High Court.   

11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had made  

a  valid  application  for  allotment  and  it  was  improperly  

rejected on account of HUDA allotting the plot applied for  

by the appellant to the fifth respondent (even though its  

application was for a different plot), HUDA may consider  

6

the request of the appellant for allotment of the hospital  

plot at Sector 23A on such terms as it deems fit, as per  

its rules and regulations in accordance with law.  

12. With the said observations, this appeal is disposed of.

………..…………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …………..…………………………J. January 19, 2011. (A K Patnaik)

7