Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1215 (PNJ)

Jagdish Kumari v. State of Punjab

2000-10-05

NIRMAL SINGH, R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - Heard. 2. Smt. Jagdish Kumari wife of Shri Baldev Krishan has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.5.1999, Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No. 2 and further prayed that direction be given to respondent No. 2 to fix the price of plot No. 296 allotted on 20.5.1999 as per the orders of the High Court dated 28.8.1995 at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per marla when plot No. 733 was originally allotted on 1.3.1980 instead of Rs. 2325/- per square yard as plot No. 296 has been allotted in lieu of plot No. 733, the possession of which could not be delivered for the past 19 years. 3. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that she was allotted a 10 marla plot on 19.1.1980. Petitioner was informed that plot No. 733 was allotted to her vide Annexure P-2 on 1.3.1980. On 25.10.1980, petitioner was again informed vide Annexure P-3 that the plot allotted to her has been cancelled. On 13.8.1982, she was again informed vide Annexure P-4 that the scheme under which the plot was allotted to her has been withdrawn by the State Government. On 19.11.1982, respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-5 informed the petitioner that possession of the plot earlier allotted to her could not be given. Similar was the intimation which was sent to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 on 31.5.1994. 4. For the benefit of the petitioner, vide Annexure P-7 dated 20.5.1999, she was allotted a plot No. 296 of 250 sq. yards under the Development Scheme 94.5 acre, G.T. Road by-pass, Jalandhar at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per square yard, which according to the petitioner is too high. The grouse of the petitioner is that since plot No. 296 has been allotted to her in lieu of plot No. 733, therefore, the Trust is bound to charge the initial price against which plot No. 733 was allotted to her. With these premises, petitioner has prayed for the above relief. 5. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. It has been contested by respondent No. 2. With these premises, petitioner has prayed for the above relief. 5. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. It has been contested by respondent No. 2. According to it, plot No. 296 in 94.5 Acre Development Scheme at Jalandhar was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of plot No. 733, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar, after the petitioner has given her willingness to accept any plot under any future Scheme formulated by the respondent for the allotment of the plots and now the petitioner cannot insist that respondent No. 2 must charge the price, which was applicable at the time of allotment of Plot No. 733. It is also the stand of respondent No. 2 that the possession of Plot No. 733 could not be delivered to the petitioner because the land was in possession of Rehabilitation Department and despite the best efforts, the Trust could not get the possession of the same. 6. Petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 7047 of 1995 in this Court, which was disposed of on 28.8.1995. Since the petitioner showed her willingness to accept any plot under any other future scheme, so the petitioner is bound to pay the price fixed by the respondent No. 2 in any future scheme. It was not the direction of the Court that Trust is bound to accept the price of the plot at such rate against which the petitioner was earlier allotted plot No. 733. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record. 8. First of all, we may consider the admitted facts. Admitted facts are that petitioner was allotted Plot No. 733 measuring 10 marlas at J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per marla. It is also the common case of the parties that possession of the said plot could not be matured because the land was under the possession of the Rehabilitation Department. Further, vide order dated 20.5.1999, Annexure P-7, plot No. 296 measuring 250 sq. yards in Development Scheme 94.5 acre G.T. Road by-pass, Jalandhar was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard. It may be highlighted here that this order dated 20.5.1999 was passed in compliance with the order dated 28.8.1995 passed by the High Court. yards in Development Scheme 94.5 acre G.T. Road by-pass, Jalandhar was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard. It may be highlighted here that this order dated 20.5.1999 was passed in compliance with the order dated 28.8.1995 passed by the High Court. It will be useful for us, if we reproduce, in verbatim, the contents of Annexure P-7:- "OFFICE OF JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST To Smt. Jagdish Kumari, 63, Nijatam Nagar, Jalandhar. Memo No. 841 dated 20.5.1999. Sub :- Allotment of plot No. 296 Development Scheme 94.5 acre, G.T. Road by- pass Jalandhar in lieu of plot No. 733, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar. 9. In compliance with the order dated 28.8.1995 of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, plot No. 296 of 250 sq. yards Development Scheme 94.5 acres at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard is allotted to you on the following conditions :- 1. The cost of the above plot at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard comes to Rs. 5,81,250/-. The amount already deposited has been adjusted and the amount of Rs. 5,63,716/- is outstanding against you which can be deposited within a period of 30 days. If you want to deposit the amount in instalments in that case amount of Rs. 1,40,929/- as 25% be deposited within a period of 30 days and for the balance payment, schedule of payment will be supplied to you later on. If the payment if not deposited within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you are not interested in the allotment and allotment will be taken back. Sd/- Chairman Improvement Trust, Jalandhar" 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Plot No. 296 has been allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the earlier plot No. 733. Earlier the petitioner deposited the earnest money. The said deal could not mature in favour of the petitioner because of the fault of the Trust, which could not deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner and in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer and respondent No. 2 cannot be allowed to take the advantage of its own fault and it cannot charge the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard. 2325/- per sq. yard. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that this plot was allotted to the petitioner, while complying with the directions dated 28.8.1995 given by the High Court. In the said order, there is no direction to the Trust that it will charge at the old rate. Rather, the petitioner had showed her willingness to accept the plot in any future scheme and in these circumstances, the petitioner is bound down to pay the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard. 11. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and are of the considered opinion that both, in law and equity, the petitioner deserves relief from this Court. In this case, the contents contained in Annexure P-7, reproduced above, are very important. A reading of the said letter would show that allotment of Plot No. 296, in Development Scheme 94.5 acre G.T.Road By- Pass, Jalandhar was made in favour of the petitioner in lieu of plot No. 733, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar. In these circumstances, the Trust is practically discharging its obligation qua the petitioner with reference to the initial allotment, which was made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot suffer for the fault of the Trust as she could not get the possession of the plot for the last 19 years. She had to approach the Court, which passed directions on 28.8.1995 and finally plot No. 296 was allotted to the petitioner. 12. In these circumstances, the Trust cannot call upon the petitioner to pay the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard, rather it is bound to allot a plot in favour of the petitioner at the initial price of Rs. 2200/- per marla. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in M/s H.K. Sanghi & Company v. State of Haryana and others, 1997(1) PLJ 329, in which it was observed that "petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the acts and omissions for which the sole responsibility lies upon HUDA authorities and HUDA authorities cannot unilaterally enhance the price than the one which was at one point of time offered to the petitioner. It was also observed that action on the part of Authorities while claiming enhanced amount cannot be held to be legal or within jurisdiction in view of their earlier obligations and HUDA authorities cannot be permitted to call upon the petitioner to pay enhanced amount under garb of policy decision". 14. Our attention is also invited to a short order dated 26.11.1982 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 2602 of 1982 titled Royal Industries v. Estate Officer, Faridabad & others, in which similar point arose for consideration and it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court as under :- "In fact having received earnest money and approved allotment to the petitioner, the allotment to some other person without any justification is clearly discriminatory. We, therefore, direct respondents 1 & 3 to allot plot Nos. 9 and 10 in Sector No. 5, if available, or any other suitable plot of the same area at the price prevalent at the time when the petitioner had paid the earnest money and his allotment was approved." 15. In the present case, it is proved on the record that petitioner was allotted a plot of 10 marlas on 19.1.1980 and the earnest money was also accepted by the Trust. In these circumstances, the Trust now cannot demand the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard. Resultantly, letter, Annexure P-7 to the extent of demanding the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2325/- per sq. yard stands quashed. The writ petition is allowed and directions are given to respondents 1 & 2 to charge the price of Plot No. 296 at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per marla. The revised demand shall be issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. If the money has already been deposited by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 shall deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, respondent No. 2 shall execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.