Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1224 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh v. Karanbir Singh Sidhu

2001-10-31

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Sukhwinder Singh has filed the present contempt petition against the respondents under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Land measuring 9 kanals 4 marlas belonging to the petitioner Sukhwinder Singh was acquired by the State Government in the year 1973. The award was given in the year 1976. As per the policy of the State Government, the local displaced person was entitled to one plot after carving out of the scheme as per the area acquired by the Government. It is a common case of the parties that as per the said policy, the petitioner was entitled to a plot of 200 sq. yards. The State Government did not comply with the policy as a result of which the petitioner had to file a Civil Writ Petition No. 8793 of 1999 which was disposed of by the Honble Division Bench on 7.7.1999 and the following directions were given :- "After hearing the learned counsel, we are prima facie satisfied that the grievance made by the petitioner deserves to be remedied. Therefore, we direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to examine the petitioners claim for allotment of land as local displaced person in accordance with the policy which was in force in the year 1981 i.e. when the notice Annexure P-1 was issued and pass appropriate order within one month of the submission of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. If the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of a residential plot, they shall communicate a reasoned order at the end of one months period. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above." In pursuance of the order dated 7.7.1999, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 16.7.1999 calling upon the State Government to comply with the directions of the Honble High Court quoted above. Yet two more legal notices were given on 3.8.1999 and 17.8.1999. Those notices also met with the same fate of negation. 3. Yet two more legal notices were given on 3.8.1999 and 17.8.1999. Those notices also met with the same fate of negation. 3. In pursuance of the above directions, the respondents issued a letter dated 15.9.1999 vide which an offer was made to the petitioner for the allotment of 100 square yards plot of Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per square yard. It was also told to the petitioner that if he accepts this offer he should intimate his acceptance along with an amount of Rs. 65,800/- together with Rs. 1700/- already deposited by him along with his application, being 25% of the price of the plot. 4. The petitioner served one more notice dated 7.10.1999 and one more notice was given on 4.11.1999. The petitioner again filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 15306 of 1999 which was disposed of by the Honble High Court on 1.11.1999 with the following directions :- "After hearing Shri T.S. Gujral and perusing the record, we find some merit in the submission of learned counsel that there is no tangible reason why the petitioner should be burdened with the liability of paying price of the plot allotted to him at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per square yard, we can understand the logic of requiring the allottee to pay the amount of interest on the price to be charged but variation in the rate i.e. Rs. 85/- and Rs. 2700/- per square yard is not understandable." We would have issued a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the price factor, but keeping in view the fact that notice dated 7.10.1999 served by the petitioner through his counsel is yet to be replied by the respondents. We deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioners claim for charging of price at par with other allottees who had applied under the scheme of 1981 be considered and decided by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, within two months of the submission of certified copy of this order, together with a copy of the writ petition. While doing so, the Chief Administrator shall keep in view the assertion made in the writ petition and notice of demand for justice that other allottees were given plots at the rate of Rs. While doing so, the Chief Administrator shall keep in view the assertion made in the writ petition and notice of demand for justice that other allottees were given plots at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard and even those who were allotted plots in pursuance of the direction given by the Supreme Court and the High Court have not been burdened with the liability to pay Rs. 2700/- per square yard. Ordered accordingly". The reading of the above would show that the Honble Division Bench was very much conscious of the fact that respondents were asking the petitioner to pay the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per square yard and the Honble Division Bench virtually quashed that demand by making observation that there is no tangible reason why the petitioner should be burdened with the liability of paying price of the plot allotted to him at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per square yard. 5. In these circumstances, the demand issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioner to pay the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 2700/- per square order was totally illegal and unjustified. Rather it was a wilful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench and such a demand letter should not have been issued by the Head of the department. It was also illegal action on the part of the respondents when the petitioner was asked that he will be allotted plot of 100 square yards. Why this illegitimate offer was made to the petitioner. It speaks about the inefficiency and vested interest of the officials/officers who were sitting in the office/offices and whose primary anxiety is only to punish the people and to create miseries and harassments for their citizens. Such a callous attitude cannot be accepted and must be nipped in the bud. The signal of the High Court is clear to every officer who indulges in these types of tactics. I would like to show in this order that law is supreme and nobody should consider himself that he is above the law. 6. In these circumstances, I give directions to the respondents to allot a plot of 200 square yards to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard. I would like to show in this order that law is supreme and nobody should consider himself that he is above the law. 6. In these circumstances, I give directions to the respondents to allot a plot of 200 square yards to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard. Of course, the petitioner shall pay interest regarding which the Honble Division Bench has already said that this is within the purview of the authorities. The directions of this Court must be complied with by the respondents authorities within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order. Now fresh demand shall be issued to the petitioner within seven days calling upon him to deposit the amount of the plot at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard and the petitioner shall be offered a plot of 200 square yards in Samrala Road Scheme. Any further non-compliance of this order will be viewed very strictly by this Court. Copy Dasti. Petition allowed.