Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4385 (PNJ)

Shashi Bala v. State of Punjab

2006-11-17

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
JUDGMENT Nirmal Yadav, J. - Petitioner-Shashi Bala, a social worker, applied to the Chief Minister of Punjab for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards out of the discretionary quota of the Government of Punjab on 28.1.1987. Petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh. However, she wanted to settle at Ropar. After due verification, respondent No. 1 approved the allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, out of the discretionary quota. A direction was issued to respondent No. 2 (Improvement Trust, Ropar) to allot the plot as aforesaid, under Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter to be referred to as the allotment rules) vide Memo dated 10.2.1987 (Annexure P-2). After receipt of letter, Annexure P-2, the petitioner did not hear anything from respondent No. 2 and, therefore, she submitted representation dated 21.9.1987 for expediting the allotment of the plot in her favour. Respondent No. 2 did not even acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid representation, however, allotted 3 plots to other persons vide order dated 30.11.1987, the details whereof are as under :- Name Plot No. 1. Ram Chander 338 2. Ms. Paramjit Kaur 634 3. Gian Singh 192 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 19.1.1988 to respondent No. 1. In pursuance thereof, respondent No. 1 called upon respondent No. 2 to submit report within a week vide order dated 25.1.1988 (Annexure P-4). However, nothing was heard by the petitioner in this respect. Later on, it transpired that one plot of similar specification was allotted by respondent No. 2 to Shri R.C. Ahuja and another plot to Shri Bhag Singh of Ropar under the resolution of the Board. Subsequently, allotment in favour of Bhag Singh was reported to be annulled. Petitioner requested the Director, Local Government, Punjab to intervene in the matter and get her allotted a plot, vide representation dated 25.4.1988 (Annexure P-5). The Director, Local Government did not respond to the aforesaid request of the petitioner. However, the petitioner received Memo No. RET/1658 dated 4.7.1988 from respondent No. 2 calling upon her to submit an affidavit in support of her income. The petitioner promptly complied with the requirement and submitted the requisite affidavit. Even thereafter, nothing was heard from respondent No. 2 with regard to allotment of plot. However, the petitioner received Memo No. RET/1658 dated 4.7.1988 from respondent No. 2 calling upon her to submit an affidavit in support of her income. The petitioner promptly complied with the requirement and submitted the requisite affidavit. Even thereafter, nothing was heard from respondent No. 2 with regard to allotment of plot. The grievance of the petitioner was published in the newspapers viz. The Tribune dated 7.11.1988 under the column Our Readers Complaints and Indian Express dated 15.11.1988 under the column "Complaint Box". Respondent No. 2 sent a reply to the News Editor Indian Express, Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.12.1988 (Annexure P-9) stating that all the documents pertaining to allotment have already been submitted to respondent No. 1 for necessary action. As and when any reply is received, information will be sent. A similar reply was published in the Indian Express dated 10.1.1989 (Annexure P-10). 2. Vide Memo dated 2.1.1989 (Annexure P-11), respondent No. 1 intimated to the petitioner that no plot is clearly available for allotment in the scheme. However, the petitioners claim could be considered only when a plot becomes available. Petitioner requested the respondents time and again for allotment of plot in her favour as all the formalities stood complied with. It was further represented that a plot allotted in favour of Shri Bhag Singh, Ex. M.L.A., stood annulled and the same was available for allotment, therefore, it could be allotted to the petitioner. During various visits to the offices of both the respondents, petitioner was repeatedly assured by them that matter was being processed at the appropriate level and needful would be done very soon. It is pleaded that action of the respondents in not allotting plot to the petitioner, despite specific orders of allotment issued by respondent No. 1, and making allotments in favour of many other persons under the scheme, is discriminatory and arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot measuring 500 square yards in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Development Scheme, Ropar. 3. In the written-statement filed by respondent No. 1 it has been admitted that petitioner applied for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards out of Government Discretionary quota at Ropar in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Development Scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ropar (respondent No. 2). 3. In the written-statement filed by respondent No. 1 it has been admitted that petitioner applied for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards out of Government Discretionary quota at Ropar in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Development Scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ropar (respondent No. 2). It is also admitted that respondent No. 1 had approved allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 square yards out of discretionary quota to the petitioner in the above-mentioned scheme and a direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to allot her a plot under Rule 4 of the allotment rules on usual terms and conditions and subject to furnishing of affidavit and Social Welfare Certificate as provided in the rules. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2 had made recommendation to respondent No. 1 to allot one plot measuring 500 square yards to Shri Bhag Singh out of MLA/MP quota, but the recommendation was rejected by the Government vide letter dated 3.8.1989. It is further submitted that as per the position available with respondent No. 1, no plot measuring 500 square yards was available in the abovementioned scheme at the relevant time nor any plot was available at the time of filing written-statement, in the aforementioned scheme. 4. Respondent No. 2-Improvement Trust, Rup Nagar, in its reply submitted that petitioner did not submit the affidavit as required under the rules to show that she did not own any residential plot/house anywhere in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate or in any scheme of the Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the State of Haryana. It is admitted that respondent No. 2 had received order-Annexure P-2 to allot a plot measuring 500 square yards out of the Government discretionary quota to the petitioner in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar under Rule 4 of the allotment rules subject to furnishing of affidavit as provided under the rules. Petitioner did not submit the Social Worker Certificate as required by letter, Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2, however, admitted that one plot measuring 500 square yards was allotted to Shri Ram Chander Ahuja, who had duly complied with the conditions and formalities relating to allotment of plot. Paramjit Kaur and Gian Singh were also allotted plots measuring 150 square yards and 300 square yards, respectively, in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Paramjit Kaur and Gian Singh were also allotted plots measuring 150 square yards and 300 square yards, respectively, in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Respondent No. 2 conveyed vide letter dated 29.3.1988 (Annexure R-1), to the petitioner that she should produce a Social Worker Certificate so that further action could be taken with regard to allotment of plot to her, but she did not furnish the necessary documents including the affidavit to the effect that she did not own any residential plot/house anywhere in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate or in any scheme of the Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the State of Haryana. 5. Respondent No. 2 admitted that it had submitted a recommendation to respondent No. 1 for allotting a plot to Shri Bhag Singh, M.L.A., Ropar, but, the aforesaid proposal was rejected by respondent No. 1. During the said period a civil suit was filed by one Krishan Dev Kaushal, a local displaced person of the said Scheme, in the Court of Sub-Judge Ist Class on 4.12.1987. Accordingly, the civil Court granted ad-interim stay order restraining the Improvement Trust from allotting plot No. 337 measuring 500 square yards to any other person. The above suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1990 directing respondent No. 2 to allot a plot measuring 500 square yards to Krishan Dev Kaushal in the aforesaid Scheme at reserve price. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment and decree dated 30.9.1992. Accordingly, the said plot was allotted to Krishan Dev Kaushal. Respondent No. 2, however, stated that no plot measuring 500 square yards is available in the aforesaid Scheme of the Improvement Trust at Ropar. 6. In the replication, the petitioner categorically stated that she had submitted all the documents including the affidavit as required under the rules and the Social Worker Certificate. She further stated that at the relevant time several plots were available, out of which plot bearing No. 338 was allotted to Ram Chander and No. 328 to Madho Singh, MLA, which was subsequently allotted to Shri Devinder Singh. She further stated that at the relevant time several plots were available, out of which plot bearing No. 338 was allotted to Ram Chander and No. 328 to Madho Singh, MLA, which was subsequently allotted to Shri Devinder Singh. Vide Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 21336 of 2005, the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 had advertised for conducting auction of various residential and commercial properties on 15.12.2005, therefore, the plea of non-availability of plots was no more available to the respondents. It was, therefore, requested that respondent No. 2 may be directed to allot a plot of 500 square yards or two plots of 250 square yards each at the reserve price. 7. In the reply filed by Chairman, Improvement Trust, to the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Application, it was stated that residential plots of 250 square yards were auctioned on 15.12.2005 and thereafter no plot was available. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even in the month of December 2005, 3 plots were available in Giani Zail Singh Nagar and many more plots are available in other localities. It was also stated at the Bar that petitioner was willing to accept plot in any other locality also. Therefore, vide order dated 11.10.2006, learned counsel for the Improvement Trust was directed to file an affidavit clearly depicting the position with regard to availability of plots as on 15.12.2005 and till date. In pursuance of the order dated 11.10.2006, Shri Ashok Kumar, Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ropar, has filed the affidavit wherein it has been admitted that the Improvement Trust had issued an advertisement for sale of residential plots bearing No. 714, 715, 716 measuring 250 square yards situated in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Scheme on reserve price of Rs. 3,500/- per square yard by auction to be held on 15.12.2005 and those plots were sold for Rs. 18,37,000/-, Rs. 18,25,000/- and Rs. 19,37,000/-, respectively, to the highest bidders. In para 3, it is submitted that 21 plots measuring 100 square yards, 14 plots of 200 square yards, 5 plots of 120 square yards in Dashmesh Nagar and one plot measuring 120 square yards in Beant Singh Nagar are available with the Improvement Trust. In December 2005, applications were invited through advertisement from the general public for the sale of the aforesaid plots by draw of lots. In December 2005, applications were invited through advertisement from the general public for the sale of the aforesaid plots by draw of lots. About 3200 persons submitted their applications along with 1/10th of the sale price of the plot as earnest money. However, Civil Writ Petition No. 3801 of 2006 was filed by Rajodh Singh and others challenging the sale of aforesaid plots, inter alia, on the ground that the land from which the plots were carved out, was green belt and Improvement Trust could not sell the plots. This Court vide order dated 1.3.2006 had stayed the draw of lots of the aforesaid plots. In the end, it is stated that 3 other plots measuring 120, 160 square yards, in Pensioners Quota, and 350 square metre, in General Category, are available with the Improvement Trust in Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme of the Trust. 9. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 had approved the allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 square yards out of the Governments discretionary quota to the petitioner in Development scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar Improvement Trust, Ropar at double the reserve price for whole of the plot on usual terms and conditions. Accordingly, vide memo-Annexure P-2, respondent No. 2 was directed to allot a plot on furnishing of an affidavit as required under the rules and Trust was also directed to obtain a social welfare certificate. In spite of the directions issued by the Government, no plot was allotted. The petitioner then submitted several representations to the Government. On 4.7.1988, the Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit as per the proforma enclosed with the letter. According to the petitioner, she submitted the affidavit, as required, but nothing was heard till November, 1988. She, therefore, wrote letters to the Editors of the newspapers The Tribune and the Indian Express. Both the newspapers published the news item in this regard. The Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust, in pursuance of those publications, informed the newspaper Editors that all the documents pertaining to allotment have already been submitted to the Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh for necessary action. However, no reply has been received from the Government. Both the newspapers published the news item in this regard. The Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust, in pursuance of those publications, informed the newspaper Editors that all the documents pertaining to allotment have already been submitted to the Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh for necessary action. However, no reply has been received from the Government. On 2.1.1989, vide Annexure P-11, the Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab informed the petitioner that there was no plot clearly available for allotment in the Scheme and her application could be considered only if some plot became available. The petitioner informed the Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Government of Punjab that several plots including plot Nos. 337 and 338 were available with the Improvement Trust for allotment. The petitioner further categorically informed the Government as well as the Improvement Trust that she had complied with the formalities as required under the rules. The letters written by the Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust to the Editors of the newspapers stating that all the documents pertaining to allotment had been submitted to the Government for necessary action, also clearly shows that the plea of the Improvement Trust that petitioner had not submitted affidavit and Social Welfare Certificate is without any merit. 10. Proviso to Rule 14 of the allotment rules clearly provides that 10% of the residential plots and multi-storeyed houses were to be allotted by the Trust with the approval of the Government to such category or class of persons in the manner as the Government may from time to time keeping in view the socio-economic condition of such persons specify. The petitioner being a social worker was, therefore, entitled to allotment of a plot with the approval of the Government. The Government had approved the allotment. It is clear from the affidavit dated 30.10.2006 filed by Shri Ashok Kumar, Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ropar that plot Nos. 714, 715, 176 measuring 250 square yards in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Scheme were available as on 15.12.2005 and were sold by the Trust through an auction. It is further stated in para-3 of the affidavit that 21 plots measuring 100 square yards, 14 plots of 200 square yards, 5 plots measuring 120 square yards are available in Dashmesh Nagar and 1 plot measuring 120 square yards is available in Beant Singh Nagar Scheme with the Improvement Trust, Ropar. It is further stated in para-3 of the affidavit that 21 plots measuring 100 square yards, 14 plots of 200 square yards, 5 plots measuring 120 square yards are available in Dashmesh Nagar and 1 plot measuring 120 square yards is available in Beant Singh Nagar Scheme with the Improvement Trust, Ropar. The applications were invited for sale of aforesaid plots by draw of lots and 3200 persons had submitted applications along with 1/10th of sale price as earnest money. However, one Rajodh Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3801 of 2006 challenging the sale of abovesaid plots by draw of lots and this Court vide order dated 9.3.2006 stayed the draw of lots of the aforesaid plots. The Improvement Trust had challenged the said order by filing Special Leave Petition in the Honble Supreme Court. In para-4, it is submitted that 3 other plots measuring 120 square yards, 160 square yards in pensioners quota and 1 plot of 350 square metres falling in General Category are available in the Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme of the Improvement Trust. 11. From the affidavit filed by the Chairman, Improvement Trust, it is evident that several plots are still available with respondent No. 2 for which draw of lots was to be held and certain other plots are available in Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme. One of these plots in Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme falls in General Category. The Government has already approved the allotment of plot in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had already complied with the formalities and submitted the documents as required by the respondents. Another person who had approached the civil court by filing a civil suit, has been allotted the plot. 12. According to respondents, at present no plot is available in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, though some plots were sold by conducting auction in the year 2005. Petitioner has not made those auction purchasers as party, therefore, no adverse order can be passed against them in the present writ petition. However, according to respondent No. 2, some plots of smaller area are available in other schemes, such as, Dashmesh Nagar, Beant Singh Nagar and Bhagat Singh Nagar. One of these plots measuring 350 square metres belonging to general category is available in the Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ropar. However, according to respondent No. 2, some plots of smaller area are available in other schemes, such as, Dashmesh Nagar, Beant Singh Nagar and Bhagat Singh Nagar. One of these plots measuring 350 square metres belonging to general category is available in the Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ropar. The respondents are directed to allot a plot to the petitioner at the price which was fixed at the time when the Government had directed the Improvement Trust to allot a plot to the petitioner in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. 13. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Petition allowed.