Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 470 (JK)

Vijay Rattan v. State

2010-08-26

Sunil Hali

body2010
1. A plot of land measuring 30’X60’ was allotted in the name of one Brij Krishan Sadhu. As the said plot was a corner plot, an additional premium of Rs. 1000/- was charged from the said allottee and the plot was numbered as Plot No. P-10, situate in Sector No. 7, Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu. Adjacent to this plot a strip of land measuring 600 Sqft was also allotted to the original allottee on payment of extra premium. Thus the size of the plot became 2400 Sqft. Consequent to the allotment a lease deed was also executed with the Jammu Development Authority. The lease hold rights came to be transferred by the original allottee in favour of the petitioner on payment of the requisite transfer fee amounting to Rs. 14333/-. On deposit of the said amount necessary permission was granted by the respondents on 27.12.2005 for the execution of the lease deed and, accordingly, lease hold rights were transferred in favour of the petitioner. An extra strip of land existed adjacent to Plot No. 10-P, which was reserved for development of the green patch along side the main road. It transpires that said piece of land was being allotted to some influential person with the result that the corner plot status of the plot of the petitioner would diminish, for which he has paid the extra premium. Accordingly, petitioner applied to the respondents for allotment of this piece of land also in his favour. The size of the piece of land, as reflected in the dimensions shown by the respondents, is 4266 Sqft.. 2. As the petitioner’s request for allotment of this piece of land was still under process, respondent no.2 submitted a new proposal for carving out a new plot and modifying the lay out plan, in making allotment of plot measuring 4266 Sqft in favour of respondent no.3. It seems that respondent no.3 was allotted plot measuring 40’X80’ in Roop Nagar Housing Colony, on 28.02.1996 against a premium of Rs. 90,000/-, which was required to be paid in two installments. Respondent no.3 did not chose to deposit the amount, except an amount of Rs. 9000/- which he had deposited along with his application. Respondent no.3 did not deposit the remaining amount for a period of ten years and finally on 19.01.2006 he made an application that remaining amount be accepted and plot be allotted to him. Respondent no.3 did not chose to deposit the amount, except an amount of Rs. 9000/- which he had deposited along with his application. Respondent no.3 did not deposit the remaining amount for a period of ten years and finally on 19.01.2006 he made an application that remaining amount be accepted and plot be allotted to him. The official respondents showed favorable inclination in not only allotting plot measuring 4182 Sqft in Sector No.7 in his favour but also directed the respondent no.3 to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 4,65,432/- within 3o days, which included 10% extra charges for corner plot. This order of allotme4nt has been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that, earlier letter of allotment issued in favour of respondent no.3 in the year 1996 for allotment of plot of land, was only a letter of intent and did not confer any right on the said respondent and on his failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, his right to allotment has extinguished and could not be claimed after a lapse of ten years. It is stated that by allotment of said plot of land to respondent no.3, the status of the petitioner’s plot as "Corner Plot" has diminished, for which he has paid the extra premium. It is further contended that allotment in favour of respondent no.3 was illegal as Chief Town Planner was not competent to modify the lay out plan nor could he alter the dimension of the plot already allotted to the petitioner. Allotment, even if to be made, was to be done by auction or by draw of lots. This is the case set out by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that additional strip of 600 Sqft of land adjacent to the plot of the petitioner, could not be allotted to him as he failed to pay the extra premium. As a result of this his plot lost the status of being a corner plot. His claim for allotment of additional strip, which is the subject matter of the dispute in this writ petition, could not be ordered as the size of the strip is 4182 Sqft. In respect of respondent no.3, it is stated that he was allotted plot measuring 40’X80’, for which he failed to make the payment. His claim for allotment of additional strip, which is the subject matter of the dispute in this writ petition, could not be ordered as the size of the strip is 4182 Sqft. In respect of respondent no.3, it is stated that he was allotted plot measuring 40’X80’, for which he failed to make the payment. His request for reviving the allotment order was accepted as there was no time limit fixed in the original allotment order for depositing the premium. As respondent no.3 had requested for allotment of alternate plot of land, his request was accepted. However, he was asked to pay Rs. 5,51,432 as price of the plot in question. This is in net shell the case of the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The dispute relates to allotment of a piece of land measuring 4266 Sqft., which, in the site plan has been shown as a strip for development of green patch, has been converted into a plot of the size of 4182 Sqft. There is an apparent violation of Section 12 of the Development Act of 1970. The power to modify the site plan under Section 8 vests with the authority prescribed under the Act. The authority would constitute nine members including Chairman and Vice Chairman. The said exercise has been undertaken by respondent no.2 and not by the prescribed authority. The allotment of plot measuring 40’X80’ in favour of respondent no.3 was only a letter of intent and it does not confer any right on the respondent no.3. Once he failed to deposit the amount, the order of allotment would cease to exist. In allowing respondent no.3 to revive his claim, respondent no.2, has not allotted the originally allotted plot of the size 40’X80’ to him but the size of the plot has been increased to 4182 Sqft which has been allotted to him. This, in essence, was a fresh allotment which could not have been done by respondent no.2, except by the modes provided under the Act for allotment of such plots. The mode provided for allotment is either by auction or draw of lots. This was to be done keeping in view the principle of equality provided for allotment of largesses by the State. The mode provided for allotment is either by auction or draw of lots. This was to be done keeping in view the principle of equality provided for allotment of largesses by the State. The allotment could not have been ordered in favour of respondent no.3 without permitting all the persons to participate in such process of allotment. On this count alone the order of allotment in favour of respondent no.3 is required to be quashed. I, say so because the original allotment of plot in favour of respondent no.,3 is of the size of 40’X80’ and it does not mention any Sector number as to where this plot is located. It is only after the process is revived in the year 2006, that plot has been allotted not only of the size of 40’X80’ but additional 1000 Sqft has also been allotted in favour of respondent no.3, after converting the land reserved for development of green patch into a corner plot in Sector 7. This clearly shows that the original allotment was fictitious as it did not mention any plot number at all. 7. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that a fresh allotment order has been issued in favour of respondent no.3, which could not have been done without taking recourse to the mode provided under the Act for allotment of the land. 8. I, therefore, allow this writ petition. The impugned order of allotment is set aside and respondent no.2 is directed to allot the same after putting it to auction/draw of lots, strictly in terms of the procedure prescribed for such allotment. However, in case the plot in question has been earmarked in the plan than alone it should be put to auction.