Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1394 (PNJ)

Daljit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2002-12-16

S.S.SARON

body2002
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her application dated 11.9.1969 for allotment of plot measuring 200 sq. yards. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards in Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) vide application dated 11.9.1969. She deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money and was assigned registration No. 5223. The petitioner received memo dated 1.2.1974 Annexure P-2 wherein she was informed that it was proposed to give priority in the allotment of plots. The priority was to be on the basis of mode of making payments i.e. (1) those who make lump-sum payment of balance price, (2) those who pay in two equated annual instalments, (3) those who make payment of balance price in three equated instalments, and (4) who make payment of balance price as per existing system i.e. the balance amount payable in six annual equated instalments. The petitioner was asked the category in which she would like her application to be considered. Thereafter, she was informed vide memo letter dated 7.12.1974 Annexure P-1 by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, Chandigarh, that the directorate of Urban Estate had decided to categorise the residential plots in two groups i.e. Group No. 1 for plots measuring from 250 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards and Group II for plots measuring from 100 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards. The plots ranging from 250 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards fell in Group I and plots ranging from 100 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards fell in Group II. It was indicated that the plots in Group I would be sold on cash down basis except in the case of Punjab Government and defence (including B.S.F.) employees, who were to be allotted plots on deferred payment basis. However, the allotment of plots ranging from 100 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards were to be allotted on deferred payment and the price was payable in four annual equated instalments. Plots in Group II were indicated to be available for ailotment to specified income group indicated against each size of plots. The petitioner had applied for 250 sq. yards and therefore she fell in Group I category. She was asked to remit the balance amount of Rs. Plots in Group II were indicated to be available for ailotment to specified income group indicated against each size of plots. The petitioner had applied for 250 sq. yards and therefore she fell in Group I category. She was asked to remit the balance amount of Rs. 14725/- to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate respondent No. 2 by 21.12.1974 and resultantly she would continue to enjoy her original seniority for allotment of plot in case the balance price was remitted within the stipulated period. The said memo dated 7.12.1974 Annexure P-l further provides that if on account of changed circumstances, the petitioner required a smaller size plot either on cash payment or on instalment basis as per Government Policy enumerated therein, option was to be intimated up to 24.12.1974 along with bank draft of the price equivalent to the size of the plot to enable the office to process her application further. The petitioner has not made any mention as to whether she exercised any of the options in terms of the letter dated 7.12.1974 (Annexure P-l). She was not allotted any plot upto the year 1981. However, the Directorate of Housing Urban Development addressed memo dated 7.4.1981 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner with reference to her application registered at Sr. No. 5223. It was intimated that the Government had revised the policy regarding the disposal of residential sites in the Urban Estate. As per new policy, the residential plots were again grouped in two categories. Group I related to plots measuring 250 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards. It was intimated that the eligibility for allotment of plots in Group II i.e., plots measuring 100 sq. yards, 150 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards shall be determined on the basis of income criteria indicated therein. The income criteria provided that annual income from all sources in respect of plots measuring 200 sq. yards, was to be from Rs. 12,000/- to 20,000/-, for 150 sq. yards the annual income from all sources was to be Rs. 8000/- upto 12000/- and for 100 sq. yards up to Rs. 8000/-. It was also informed that plots in Group II would be allotted at the reserve price fixed by the Government, whereas pots in Group I would be disposed of in open auction. yards the annual income from all sources was to be Rs. 8000/- upto 12000/- and for 100 sq. yards up to Rs. 8000/-. It was also informed that plots in Group II would be allotted at the reserve price fixed by the Government, whereas pots in Group I would be disposed of in open auction. The old applicants however, had option to apply for the allotment of plots in the eligible category on the basis of the afore stated income criteria. This option was to be exercised within 30 days from 7.4.1981. The option exercised was to be treated as final. The petitioner was informed that she had paid an amount of Rs. 500/- along with the application and that the price of land in Phase XI of Urban Estate S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yards in relation to plots measuring upto 200 sq. yards. The petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount to the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, Chandigarh through bank draft to make it equal to 25% of the amount for the plot if opted in Group-II. She was to continue to enjoy her original seniority in the registration for the allotment of the plot in case she remitted the balance amount within stipulated period. The petitioner submitted her option for 200sq. yards plots vide letter dated 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4. She requested to convert her plot from 250sq. yards to 200sq. yards and she deposited a sum of Rs. 3750/- towards 25% of the remaining amount worked out for 200 sq. yards plot at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard which came to Rs. 17,000/- and 25% of the amount was Rs. 4250/-. After deduction Rs. 500/- which was already paid, the balance came to Rs. 3750/-. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4000/- for 200 sq. yard. She also gave her permanent address at Amritsar as also an address at Chandigarh. The petitioner was then asked to submit an affidavit regarding income and affidavit regarding allotment as specimen proforma, which were also complied with. She was given receipt for the amount of Rs. 4000/-. Thereafter the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 6.9.1992 by the Estate Officer who promised to allot her a plot immediately, but nothing was done in spite of numerous visits. She was given receipt for the amount of Rs. 4000/-. Thereafter the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 6.9.1992 by the Estate Officer who promised to allot her a plot immediately, but nothing was done in spite of numerous visits. The petitioner further states that she was called on various occasions but without results. Ultimately she served a legal notice dated 25.6.1992 Annexure P-5 through her counsel. The respondents in their reply dated 30.7.1992 Annexure P-6 accepted the position that the name of the petitioner had been included in draw held in the years 1985 but she did not succeed in the draw. Therefore, her application was pending and her name would be considered according to policy. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging that the action of the respondents in conducting draw for allotment was absolutely arbitrary and in violation of the policy decision dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3. The petitioner was to enjoy her original seniority number. In case the plots were to be allotted through draw of lots then there was no use of having seniority number of the year 1969. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 Estate Officer field reply to the petition, In the reply, it is stated that in terms of the letter dated 7.12.1974 Annexure P-1, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 14,715/- but she failed to deposit the full amount. However, it is admitted that in response to the memo dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3, the petitioner gave fresh option within the stipulated period of 30 days vide her letter dated 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4. It is also admitted that the petitioner was asked to complete formalities regarding submitting of affidavit regarding income and affidavit regarding allotment as subsequent proforma. However, it is denied that the petitioner was given personal hearing or that she visited the office. However, the fact that she served a legal notice dated 25.6.1992 Annexure P-5 is admitted as also the reply to the same vide memo dated 30.7.1992 Annexure P-6. It is also stated that though as per the policy intimated to the petitioner vide memo dated 7.4.1081 Annexure P-3, plots were to be allotted as per seniority, however, the Government thereafter changed its policy in May, 1993 and it was decided that plots would be allotted by way of draw of lots. It is also stated that though as per the policy intimated to the petitioner vide memo dated 7.4.1081 Annexure P-3, plots were to be allotted as per seniority, however, the Government thereafter changed its policy in May, 1993 and it was decided that plots would be allotted by way of draw of lots. The changed policy dated 26.5.1983 is appended as Annexure R-1. It is stated that the petitioner could not be allotted the plot as the same was not available. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case. 5. Shri Maikiat Singh the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of 200 sq. yard plot in accordance with the policy intimated to her vide letter dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3 and in respect of which she had given her due option on 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4 and deposited a sum of Rs. 4000/- also as 25% of the amount of plot measuring 200sq. yards. He submits that the change in policy vide letter dated 26.5.1983 Annexure R-l would not apply with retrospective effect. In support of his contention he has placed strong reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushplata Jhunjhumvala v. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors., (2001-1)127 P.L.R. 290. He further relied upon Parkash Wanti (deceased) through LRs. v. State of Punjab, (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 710 and Anokh Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 202, to contend that the change of policy cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. 6. On the other hand, Shri Govind Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, has contended that change in policy in binding on the petitioner and that merely because her application was pending would not be a bar for the Government to revise its earlier policy. In support of his contention he has relied upon Dev Dutt Kaushik v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1989 P.LJ. 318. Besides, he stated that several opportunities were given by way of Newspaper advertisements to those applicants who had not got the plot. They were asked to approach the authorities for such allotment. Despite the advertisements given by the authorities, the petitioner made no efforts to approach the authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has no right to file the present petition. They were asked to approach the authorities for such allotment. Despite the advertisements given by the authorities, the petitioner made no efforts to approach the authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has no right to file the present petition. 7. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that even in terms of the new policy, separate draw of lots were to be made for old and new applicants in respect of various categories of plot allottees. Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 2 sought time to file specific affidavit as regards separate draw of lots held for old applicants. Respondent No. 2 Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Development and Planning Authority, Mohali, has filed an affidavit dated 8.10,2002. In the additional affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner was considered for allotment during draw held in 1985 but she was not successful. Reference in this regard has, in fact, already been made in the memo dated 30.7.1992 Annexure P-6 in reply to the legal notice dated 25.6.1992 Annexure P-5. It is further stated that thereafter draw was held on 1.8.1995 for old applicants and Anr. draw was held on 7,6.2000 and in this regard an advertisement was inserted in various newspapers for the old eligible applicants registered for allotment of plots at Mohali. It is however, admitted that name of the applicant could not be included in the draws held on 1.8.1995 and 7.6.2000. It is further stated that another advertisement was inserted in the Tribune dated 17.2.2001 contemplating that a draw of lots would be held, restricted to old applicants, for residential plots in Mohali and through public notice, it was intimated that the pending applicants may complete all necessary formalities for getting themselves included in the draw. They were required to submit a legal undertaking on stamp paper that they unconditionally and unequivocally accepted the present prevalent rates and consent for their consideration with general public of the appropriate category. However, inspite of the said advertisement, the petitioner never came forward with the aforementioned undertaking and, therefore, her name could not be included in the draw of lots held in 2001. However, inspite of the said advertisement, the petitioner never came forward with the aforementioned undertaking and, therefore, her name could not be included in the draw of lots held in 2001. The advertisement issued in this behalf also indicated that in case by mistake the name of any applicant was left out in the list displayed on 20.03.2001 in the office of Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, the said applicant could come forward for any error or omission by 21.3.2001, failing which, no objections would be entertained. The petitioner neither submitted an undertaking/consent in terms of the above advertisement nor came forward with any objection up to the stipulated date. Therefore, the petitioner ceased to have any right for consideration for allotment for residential plot. It is lastly deposed that the petitioner was entitled to refund of earnest money deposited by her without interest, in accordance with rules. 8. In the afore-noted circumstances, it is to be seen whether the petitioner is now entitled to an allotment of residential plot in accordance with the policy memo dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3 in respect of which she had gave her necessary option on 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4. 9. Though, there has been some fault on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as after the issuance of the memo dated 7.12.1974 Annexure P-1, the petitioner was either to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,7257- by 21.12.1974 or give her option that she wants a smaller plot and make cash payment on instalment basis upto 12.4.1974. She is not shown to have done any of the acts. The said infraction, my view, is quite insignificant in view of the fact that it is not in dispute that she had submitted an application for allotment of 250 sq. yards plot on 11.9.1969 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money. Besides, the Directorate of Housing and Urban Development had itself addressed memo dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3 giving another option to the petitioner to either come in Group I category i.e. in respect of plots ranging from 250 to 500 sq. yards or to come in Group II category of plots ranging from 100 to 200 sq. yards. The petitioner has given her necessary option vide letter dated 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4 requesting for conversion of her plot from 250 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards. She also paid Rs. yards or to come in Group II category of plots ranging from 100 to 200 sq. yards. The petitioner has given her necessary option vide letter dated 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4 requesting for conversion of her plot from 250 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards. She also paid Rs. 4000/- vide Bank draft dated 23.4.1981 in favour of the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, therefore, she has done substantial part of what she was required to do. However, she heard nothing till she served the legal notice dated 25.6.1992 Annexure P-5 in respect to which also the respondent stated that her application was included in the draw of lots held in the years 1985, but site was not successful. Therefore, her application was pending and would be considered according to the policy. Despite this, nothing has been done, the stand of the respondent now is that new policy dated 26.5.1983 Annexure R-I has come into force. It may be noticed that as per the revised policy dated 26.5.1983, it has been provided that the sale was to be made by allotment instead of auction irrespective of the size. This changed the policy dated 17.4.1981 Annexure P-3, wherein the Group I category of plots were to be given plots by auction. The eligibility for 200 sq. yards of plots was the same in the policy dated 27.4.1981 and the new policy of 26,5.1983 i.e. the allottee claiming plot 200 sq. yards was to have annual income ranging from Rs. 12000 to Rs. 20000/- p.a. Besides, the policy dated 26.5.1983 (Annexure R-l) required deposit of Rs. 4000/- as earnest money for 200 sq. yards. This amount of Rs. 4000/- stood deposited by the petitioner with the respondent vide her option dated 27.4.1981 (Annexure P-4). In respect of the mode of allotment of the plots of Group II category in the policy dated 7.4.1981 (Annexure P-3) it was indicated that it would be allotted at the reserve price fixed by the Government. This would mean by order of seniority from the date of registration. However, in terms of the revised policy dated 26.5.1983 it was to be done by way of draw of lots. This would mean by order of seniority from the date of registration. However, in terms of the revised policy dated 26.5.1983 it was to be done by way of draw of lots. The revised policy Annexure R-l also contained a provision for old applicants and it was provided that old applicants, who had not been allotted plots would be required to deposit the initial deposit at the new rates as mentioned there or get refund of their initial deposit already made. Besides, separate draw of lots would be made for old and new applicants in the respective category of plots/allottees. The earmarking and distribution of available plots between the old and new applicants was to be made in proportion to the number of applications in both these categories. There is also a power to relax in the revised policy and the government where it is satisfied, that it is necessary or expedient, to do so, may in exceptional circumstances relax any of the conditions in any case with respect to any individual or any class or any category of persons. 10. Therefore, the position is that even as per the revised policy of 26.5.1983 Annexure R1, the petitioner did not become ineligible for consideration for allotment of plot. She fell within eligibility criteria of allotment i.e. the income criteria was the same under the earlier policy of 7.4.1981 and the revised policy of 26.5.1983. Besides, she had deposited earnest money of Rs. 4000/-. The only difference was that instead of having seniority in allotment her allotment was to be made by draw of lots for the old applicants. The respondents however urge that the petitioner is now not entitled for consideration as despite several advertisements in the Newspapers asking the old applicants to make their claim, the petitioner did not make any claims. This explanation in my view is absolutely untenable as admittedly the matter was within the knowledge of the respondents all through and merely because she did not read the Newspaper she cannot be non-suited. The petitioner had been pursuing her claim at least from the submission of the legal notice dated 26.5.1992 Annexure P-5. In respect to this also the respondents had stated that her application was pending and would be considered in accordance with the policy. Thereafter she filed the present writ petition on 21.9.1992 and notice was issued on 23.9.1992. The petitioner had been pursuing her claim at least from the submission of the legal notice dated 26.5.1992 Annexure P-5. In respect to this also the respondents had stated that her application was pending and would be considered in accordance with the policy. Thereafter she filed the present writ petition on 21.9.1992 and notice was issued on 23.9.1992. The respondents filed their reply and the writ petition was admitted on 1.12.1992 and it was ordered to be set down for final hearing within one year. Therefore, as the writ petition was pending in this Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider her claim for allotment of plot and take steps and make the necessary allotment by at least including her name in the draw of lots for the old applicants in terms of the revised policy dated 26.5.1983 Annexure R-1. Apart from reference to the Newspaper reports whereas the respondents have asked for claim from old applicants there is nothing on record to show that any individual notice was given to the petitioner. This despite the fact that the petitioner had given her permanent address of Amritsar and also an address at Chandigarh in her option letter dated 27,4.1981 (Annexure P-4). Therefore, this having not been done, prejudice has been caused to the respondents. 11. It is in these circumstances that what is required to be seen is whether the petitioner is now entitled for allotment of plot on the basis of her seniority, which is determinable from the date of registration on 11.9.1969 or in accordance with the revised policy of 26.5.1983 Annexure R-l. In the case of Smt. Pushplata Jhunjhunwalas case (supra) the petitioner wanted to buy a plot from a subsequent vendee of the allottee from the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The subsequent vendee of the allottee applied for formal permission on 25.2.2000 to transfer the plot. The necessary permission was granted to transfer the plot to the petitioner in the said case. Certain documents were required to be submitted, which were also submitted on 28.2.2000. The petitioner then applied for sanction of building plan which was declined on the ground that the plot stood in the name of the vendee of the allottee and the petitioner therein was asked to get the plot transferred in her name. Certain documents were required to be submitted, which were also submitted on 28.2.2000. The petitioner then applied for sanction of building plan which was declined on the ground that the plot stood in the name of the vendee of the allottee and the petitioner therein was asked to get the plot transferred in her name. This was issued in view of the revised policy decision communicated by Chief Administrator H.U.D.A. vide memo dated 8.3.2000. It was indicated that the conveyance deed had to be executed by the vendee of the allottee in favour of the petitioner therein. It was held that the policy dated 8.3.2000 could not have retrospective effect so as to prejudicially affect the interest of the petitioner in the said case and the action of the respondents therein in not approving the plan for construction of the building was held to be unsustainable. 12. In Anokh Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 202, the petitioner applied for allotment of plot in response to an advertisement and paid the requisite initial amount. He was informed that his plot had been earmarked and that he should pay the balance amount which was paid. This was followed by repeated reminders requesting for allotment of plot. However, no letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner. After ten years vide letter dated 21.3.1989, the respondents informed the petitioner therein that in the draw of lots held on 12.3.1989 it has been decided to allot Plot No. 587 measuring 500 sq. yards, which was subject to his completing various formalities including payment of an amount of Rs. 1,26,875/- in foreign exchange as the balance price of the plot. This price was indicated to be provisional and he was informed that he would have to pay the balance as per actually fixed. However, the allotment letter could not be issued in view of the revision of policy by the State Government. This led the petitioner therein to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner therein averred that the respondents in the said case were bound to deliver possession of the plot or substitute plot without demanding enhanced price. However, the allotment letter could not be issued in view of the revision of policy by the State Government. This led the petitioner therein to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner therein averred that the respondents in the said case were bound to deliver possession of the plot or substitute plot without demanding enhanced price. It was held that for almost ten years the respondents sat over the matter and that the petitioner therein could not be made to suffer for this delay and he was held entitled for allotment of the plot and for handing the possession thereof. It was held that his rights could not be prejudiced or affected by any subsequent revision of the policy. In Parkash Wantis case (supra), the petitioner therein applied for plot in 1974. The petitioner therein had deposited the full amount on 4.10.1980. As such a preferential right as per policy then prevalent was claimed. This was resisted in view of the changed policy which had been introduced and provided for payment of enhanced amount. The contention was held by a Division Bench of this Court to be wholly devoid of any merit and it was held that the case of the petitioner was to be examined in the light of policy then prevalent and was not bound by any subsequent change in the policy. Besides, any such change was held to be prospective in its operation. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed strong reliance upon Dev Dutt Kaushiks case (supra) to contend that State Government is competent to take a policy decision in the matter of allotment and by filing an application, the applicant only gets right of consideration of his application but does not get a vested right for allotment. The said judgment is distinguishable. The petitioner therein was an oustee on account of acquisition of the land in villages Mataur and Lambe, tehsil Kharar. They sought directions for allotment of residential plots as per policy decision dated 17.4.1974 which provided that the land owners whose land was acquired were to be allotted plots before allotting plots to others. The tentative price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 58/- per sq. yard and 23 petitioners claimed plot measuring 8 marlas and one petitioner claimed allotment of plot measuring six marlas. Sub-sequently, the price of the plot was raised to Rs. The tentative price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 58/- per sq. yard and 23 petitioners claimed plot measuring 8 marlas and one petitioner claimed allotment of plot measuring six marlas. Sub-sequently, the price of the plot was raised to Rs. 85/- per sq.yard and petitioners therein were asked to cover up the deficiency. The deficient amount was deposited but the plots were not allotted and the cheques deposited by some of the petitioners were returned after one year on the ground that only one plot could be allotted to them jointly in view of the revised policy of the Government. Thereafter, letters were received by the petitioners that the oustees like the petitioners could not be allotted plots more than 200 sq. yards each and for the same, the criteria that was adopted was of gross annual income and the size of the acquired land. The dispute in the said case related to the change of the policy for allotment of land in respect of the oustees and their rights of viz. a viz. other allottees. The said case is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, a representation was made for the allotment of plots. The same is not opposed to any public policy and the petitioner has acted on the representation and has been pursuing her claim. Therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of the same. 14. In the present case as already noticed above, the petitioner has given the necessary option on 27.4.1981 in response to the letter dated 7.4.1981. Thereafter she has not been allotted the plot and her name was not included in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995 and 7.6.2000. The issuance of notices in the press in the circumstances, was quite inconsequential as the matter has been pending and petitioner has been pursuing her claim. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to her seniority fixed from the date of her application i.e. 11.9.1969 and she is to be allotted plot in accordance with the policy dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3. The subsequent policy dated 26.5.1983 Annexure R-1 would not apply in her case as the change or revision of policy cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect as has been held by this Court in cases of Smt. Pushplata Jhunjhunwala case (supra) and Anokh Singhs case (supra) and Parkash Wantis case (supra). 15. In Dr. The subsequent policy dated 26.5.1983 Annexure R-1 would not apply in her case as the change or revision of policy cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect as has been held by this Court in cases of Smt. Pushplata Jhunjhunwala case (supra) and Anokh Singhs case (supra) and Parkash Wantis case (supra). 15. In Dr. K.L. Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 759, the petitioner therein applied for allotment of 500 yards plot in Mohali on 26.4.1971. After about Three years, the Estate Officer issued a memo dated 2.2.1974 asking the petitioner therein to indicate his choice of consideration for priority in respect of allotment of plot. The priorities were similar to the ones in the present case i.e. as provided in memo dated 1.2.1974 Annexure P-2. The petitioner therein also did not give any option in pursuance of memo dated 2.2.1974. Thereafter another memo dated 9.8.1975 was issued wherein a decision had been taken to charge enhanced earnest money for allotment of plots in different categories. The petitioner therein thereafter made a representation to indicate whether or not his seniority would be maintained as per para 2 of the terms and conditions of the allotment embodied in the application form. For the next 20 years nothing happened except exchange of some correspondence. The correspondence related to price of plot. The petitioner therein claimed that he is entitled for allotment at the rate prevalent on the date of application. However, the PUDA authorities rejected his plea on the ground that the rates had been revised and asked for consent to pay the revised amount. Thereafter a draw was held on 1.8.1995 wherein pending applications were included but one submitted by the petitioner in the said case was not included in that draw because the communication sent to him had been received back undelivered. The P.U.D.A. authorities then issued public notice dated 31.8.1995 inviting applications from old eligible applicants for allotment of plots @ Rs. 1400/- per sq. yards subject to the completion of formalities and deposit of the balance of 10% earnest money on or before 4.10.1995. The petitioner therein deposited the amount before the authorities but he was not allotted plot @ Rs. 1400/- per sq. yard and after about a year and six months vide memo dated 30.4.1997, he was informed that plot can be allotted to him @ of Rs. 3600/- per sq. The petitioner therein deposited the amount before the authorities but he was not allotted plot @ Rs. 1400/- per sq. yard and after about a year and six months vide memo dated 30.4.1997, he was informed that plot can be allotted to him @ of Rs. 3600/- per sq. yard, which was protested and he claimed the allotment @ Rs. 1400/-per sq. yards. On these grounds, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the non consideration of the petitioners application in the draw held on 1.8.1975 was vitiated by arbitrariness and violation of his fundamental right to equality. It was held that once a policy decision had been taken, it was the duty to have ensured that opportunity of exercising option is given to all the eligible applicants. The objection of delay raised by the respondents therein was negatived by this Court as the petitioner in that case had waited for allotment of plot for a period of more than 24 years and when his turn came. It was held that the concerned authorities acted with gross negligence and carelessness. The claim of the respondents for charging interest was also negatived and it was ordered that the plot be allotted to the said petitioner at the rate of Rs. I200/- per sq. yard, as had been given to similarly situated allottees. 16. Following the ratio in Dr. K.L. Sharmas case, it is held that non consideration of petitioners case for allotment by various draw of lots on the pretext that the petitioner did not respond to newspaper advertisements is illegal and arbitrary. There has been procedural impropriety in not considering the application of the petitioner for allotment of plot, which vitiates the action of the respondents. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for allotment of plot at the rate as fixed in the policy dated 7.4.1981 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard. She took up the matter only with the issuance of the legal notice on 25.6.1992 Annexure P-5 and thereafter the present petition was filed in the year 1992 which has been pending since then. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for allotment of the plot as per her seniority from 11.19.1969 but at the rate that was prevalent in 1992. With the above observations, the writ petition has to be allowed partly. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for allotment of the plot as per her seniority from 11.19.1969 but at the rate that was prevalent in 1992. With the above observations, the writ petition has to be allowed partly. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to allot a plot measuring 200 sq. yards to the petitioner in accordance with its policy dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3. However, the rate for the plot would be as per the rates prevailing in the year 1992. There shall be no order as to costs.