Judgment 1. More than two decades ago, respondent No. 1 herein had applied, in the category of oustees, for allotment of a residential plot and till date even though he is said to have become 90 years old, he is still striving for a residential plot to have a homestead. Even if he gets a plot now by this order, he would hardly enjoy the pleasure or necessity of the same. 2. The learned single Judge vide judgment dated April 9, 2002, allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 3073 of 2001 (reported in 2002 (3) Pun LR 115) and while setting aside orders dated December 5, 2000 (Annexure P-13) and January 4, 2001 (Annexure P-15), directed the Estate Officer to charge the price at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per square yard from the petitioner for the plot, which had been earmarked for him. The judgment of the learned single Judge has since been challenged under clause X of the Letters Patent by filing the present appeal. 3. Brief facts culminating into passing of the impugned order that constrained the petitioner to file present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders dated October 5, 2000 (Annexure P-13) and January 4, 2001 (Annexure P-15) and consequent upon setting aside the orders aforesaid, a direction to the respondents to allot him plot No. 549, Phase II, Mohali, at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per square yard at par with other similarly situated allottees, instead of asking him to pay Rs. 3600/- per square yard, reveal that land measuring 54 Kanals 1 Marla, situated in village Kumbra, was acquired for a public purpose, namely, setting up of Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, District Ropar. Land measuring 11 Kanals 1 Marla was also acquired by the Punjab Government vide award No. 451 dated February 22, 1995. The Government framed a policy for allotment of plots to persons/oustees, whose land had been acquired for setting up of Urban Estate and on the basis of the above said policy, the writ petitioner applied for allotment of a plot measuring 1 Kanal on September 4, 1980. He deposited the earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- along with the application, which was registered at Sr. No. 10302. He deposited the earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- along with the application, which was registered at Sr. No. 10302. He was directed on May 11, 1981, to deposit the balance amount so as to make the same equal to 25% of the price of the plot. He deposited Rs. 1250/- by way of bank draft dated June 3, 1981. The petitioner, in the meantime, had also given an option for allotment of a 200 square yards plot and on March 22, 1982, Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, informed the petitioner about change of the policy regarding allotment of plots to the oustees. The petitioner gave reply to the same on May 7, 1982. His application remained pending with the authorities for about a decade and it is only on February 10, 1993, that the 3rd respondent sought clarification regarding entitlement of the petitioner, he being an oustee from a land held jointly by him and others. The petitioner informed that his total land acquired was more than 5 Acres and, therefore, he was entitled to the allotment of a plot as a matter of right. He also submitted the requisite affidavit. On April 28, 1993, however, the 3rd respondent again asked the petitioner to furnish fresh oustee certificate for the total land acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, which direction was complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter visited the office of the 3rd respondent in order to find out the fate of his application and he came to know that a sum of Rs. 56,000/- was required to be deposited to complete 10% of the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per square yard. The petitioner duly deposited the said amount vide bank draft dated May 26, 1995. The draw of lots was held on August 1, 1995. The petitioner was successful in the draw of lots and plot No. 549, Phase II, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) measuring 1 Kanal was earmarked but no allotment was made to the petitioner. On March 10, 2000, the respondent once again directed the petitioner to furnish affidavit of other owners of joint Khata. The petitioner was successful in the draw of lots and plot No. 549, Phase II, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) measuring 1 Kanal was earmarked but no allotment was made to the petitioner. On March 10, 2000, the respondent once again directed the petitioner to furnish affidavit of other owners of joint Khata. Having already clarified the position, the petitioner this time did not give any reply but instead challenged the order of the Estate Officer before the Additional Chief Administrator, who directed the 3rd respondent to take steps for allotment of earmarked plot to the petitioner in view of judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab V/s. Karam Singh Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1983, copy whereof has been placed on record of this case as Annexure P-9. The Hon ble Supreme Curt in some what similar circumstances, where litigation was with regard to entitlement of a person to an individual plot in case of acquisition of a joint holding held that it was not open to the authorities to contend that the oustees were having joint holding and, therefore, under the Scheme dated September 29, 1991, which had modified the earlier scheme dated April 7, 1974, were entitled to only one plot. It was further held that each one of the oustees was entitled to a separate plot according to the area of entitlement of each. This judgment came into being on September 11, 1997. It is rather surprising that despite the judgment aforesaid, which dealt with the very precise point pertaining to entitlement of a person, who was a joint holder in the land subject matter of acquisition, the authorities still insisted upon the petitioner to clarify the position and file affidavit. It is in these circumstances that the appeal of the petitioner came before the Additional Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, who referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court and directed Estate Officer to take steps for allotment of a plot to the petitioner. It is thereafter that the petitioner was asked to furnish price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 3,600/- per square yard instead of Rs. 1,400/- which was charged from the persons who were successful along with him in the same very draw of lots that was held on August 1, 1995. 4. It is thereafter that the petitioner was asked to furnish price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 3,600/- per square yard instead of Rs. 1,400/- which was charged from the persons who were successful along with him in the same very draw of lots that was held on August 1, 1995. 4. On the facts as have been stated above, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in the manner indicated above. In the Letters Patent Appeal that has been filed, it has been primarily contended that on account of some communication gap between the appellants and their counsel, the written-statement could not be filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is thus that inasmuch as the case of the appellants has gone by default, the matter be remitted to the learned single Judge. 5. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants as noted above. It is significant to mention that before filing the Letters Patent Appeal, an application for review was filed before the learned single Judge, wherein a separate application was filed seeking permission to place on record written statement as well. Order passed by the learned single Judge in the review application reads thus :- "I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and with his assistance have gone through the order dated 9th April, 2002. Though the learned counsel for the applicant has tried to convince me on merits, that the order dated 9-4-2002 requires modification but I am not convinced with his submission and reaffirm the order dated 9th April, 2002. CM stands disposed of." 6 This order was passed on May 31, 2002, and it is thereafter that the present Letters Patent Appeal was filed. 7. We have heard arguments on merits of the case by taking into consideration all averments made in the written statement and on the basis thereof, the submissions that have been made during the course of arguments. Had we found even a semblance of success of the appellants or for that matter had we found some substantial point, in all probability we would have remanded the case by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned single Judge but that is not the situation here. Had we found even a semblance of success of the appellants or for that matter had we found some substantial point, in all probability we would have remanded the case by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned single Judge but that is not the situation here. The remand, in the light of the observations made by us, would be an exercise in futility and would surely delay allotment of plot to the petitioner, who, as mentioned above, may not live for a long time. Even otherwise, once the learned single Judge has reappraised the issue in the light of the written statement filed by the appellants and we have also examined the records including the written statement and heard learned counsel for the appellants at full length, we are of the view that no prejudice shall be caused to the appellants for not filing the written statement in time. 8. Coming now to the merits of the case, we may mention that it has been the positive case of the petitioner so pleaded in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the action of the respondent in demanding the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per square yard is wrong, illegal and is violative of fundamental right of equality granted under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated in the paragraph aforesaid that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per square yard as has been charged from other similarly situated persons/oustees, who were declared successful in draw of lots held on August 1, 1995. The petitioner gave by way of illustration names of five persons, who were successful in the draw of lots held on August 1, 1995, along with the petitioner and were charged at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per square yard. In reply to this paragraph, all that has been mentioned in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement is that the petitioner at the time of making the application agreed to abide by condition No. 12 of the allotment conditions and he is himself guilty of causing delay in completing the formalities, then it is not understandable as to how he is claiming it to be his right to be allotted a plot at the old rates. It is then pleaded that the mention of other persons who had been allotted plots at old rates was of no relevance as they were allotted the plots at the then prevailing rates when they had completed the formalities asked for. The only formality that the petitioner did not complete was regarding clarification, which was sought from him, with regard to his joint holding and his entitlement thereof to a joint plot or for that matter requirement of submitting no objection certificate. The petitioner, as mentioned above, had clarified the position on an earlier occasion and yet he was issued a similar letter again, to which he did not respondent but chose to file an appeal with the result already indicated above. Once the policy underwent a change way back in 1991 and was interpreted by Hon ble Supreme Court by holding that a person, even though having joint land, was entitled to individual plot, there was no occasion for the State to have told the petitioner to do what was not required under the law. From the facts of this case, we find that the petitioner made no mistake nor lacked in supplying any required information. In fact, the respondents, in the present case, appear to have indulged in sheer carelessness to say the least and yet, with impunity, wanted to shift their burden to the petitioner for delaying the matter. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find the averments made in corresponding paragraph of the written statement, to the pleadings made by the petitioner, as mentioned above, to be absolutely hollow. The only defence, thus, projected in the context of the facts of this case, it appears to us, has been rightly found to be devoid of any merit by learned single Judge. We find absolutely no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs. We are of the opinion that the appellants need to be further directed to hand-over the possession of the earmarked plot only to the petitioner, on his depositing the balance amount, if any, so ordered. Appeal dismissed