Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1023 (PNJ)

Kundan Kumari v. State of Punjab

2012-08-01

R.P.NAGRATH, SURYA KANT

body2012
Judgment Surya Kant, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings of the meeting dated 04.02.2004 and consequential order dated 05.03.2004 passed by the Pepsu Town Development Board, Rajpura, cancelling allotment of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards which was allotted to her on 21.12.1992, she being widow of a terrorist-victim. 2. Brief reference to the facts may be made. The husband of the petitioner late Ved Parkash was admittedly killed by terrorists on 27.03.1984 at village Dhanaula, District Sangrur. As there were hundreds of victims of terrorism in the State of Punjab or of Anti-Sikh riots, the State Government took a policy decision to rehabilitate the victim families. The policy decision contemplates allotment of residential plots also. The petitioner in furtherance of the above stated policy submitted an application on 29.06.1989 in the prescribed format (Annexure P-1) to the Pepsu Township Development Board, Rajpura (respondent No.2) for allotment of a residential plot to her. She attached the proof of her husband having been killed by the terrorists. 3. Clause No.11 of the application form was “whether applicant has a male/female able bodied member to support him/her”. The petitioner in reply to Clause No. 11 specifically mentioned “my son is employed in S.D.M. Office, Barnala as Clerk, who is support me”. Similarly, clause-15 of the application form was “monthly family income from all sources (please enclose certificate from the DC)”. The petitioner replied “Rs. 1485.00. Certificate of pay issued by the SDM Barnala is enclosed”. 4. The petitioner received a communication (Annexure P-2) from respondent No.2 Board informing her that for allotment of plots to the victims, a draw of lots shall be held on 20.12.1991. She received another communication (Annexure P-3) informing that on the recommendation of Sub-Committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and other officers, the Chairman of the Pepsu Township Development Board had decided to allot her a residential plot of 200 sq. yards, free of costs, on the following terms & conditions:- “That you have not allowed and benefit in the shape of allotment of plot/loan etc. by any Government agency in any part of the country. That an affidavit in respect of the fact mentioned in condition (ii) above be enclosed. That you shall not sell/mortgage/transfer/gift the plot in any manner for a period of ten years. by any Government agency in any part of the country. That an affidavit in respect of the fact mentioned in condition (ii) above be enclosed. That you shall not sell/mortgage/transfer/gift the plot in any manner for a period of ten years. If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you have to submit the above documents to the undersigned within a month from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested in the allotment of the plot and the offer shall automatically stand withdrawn.” 5. The petitioner accepted the above stated terms & conditions and gave an affidavit (Annexure P-4) that she had not availed of any benefit in the shape of allotment of plot/loan etc. from any government agency. 6. The petitioner appears to have represented to the State Government on 23.07.1999 (Annexure P-9) stating that though she had been issued Red Card as an Identity Card of terrorist victim and the subject plot had also been allotted to her in the year 1992, but no sale-deed/conveyance deed had been executed in her favour. After some correspondence with the District Administration pursuant to the said representation, the petitioner received a show cause notice alleging that the above stated plot was illegally allotted to her as her son was already in Government service, hence she was disqualified for allotment as per Clause-1 of the Government policy. 7. The petitioner sent her reply to the State Government against the show cause notice and on consideration thereof, the Government of Punjab, Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, vide its memo dated 16.11.2000 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur that “the Government agrees that the plot No. 106, Bhogal Colony, Rajpura, allotted to Smt. Kundan Kumari should not be cancelled and the objection be removed as this plot is allotted to her on compassionate grounds”. (emphasis by us). Nevertheless, respondent No.2 Board decided to cancel the allotment of the subject plot vide memo dated 05.03.2004 (Annexure P-21) sent to the petitioner by the Assistant Administrator of respondent No.2 Board. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the State Government upon which comments were invited vide memo dated 27.06.2005 (Annexure P-22). 8. The petitioner's case is that nothing has been heard so far in response to above-stated appeal and the same appears to be still pending. 9. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. 10. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the State Government upon which comments were invited vide memo dated 27.06.2005 (Annexure P-22). 8. The petitioner's case is that nothing has been heard so far in response to above-stated appeal and the same appears to be still pending. 9. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. 10. Respondent No.2-Board has filed its reply admitting the fact that the petitioner had disclosed the factum of employment of her son as a Clerk in the application form and the monthly income of her family as well. The Board, however, has maintained that cancellation of allotment is valid as the petitioner was ineligible as per the Government policy. It is also claimed that subject plot has already been put to auction and allotted to one Harbhajan Singh on 13.05.2004. The factum of the petitioner's living separately from her son is also disputed. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur has also sent a fact finding report that the petitioner is living along with her son though both of them are living in the premises of a charitable trust known as Nirankari Bhawan as they do not own any residential house. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. The Government policy on allotment of residential/commercial plots to the terrorist victims does stipulate that the persons who had been killed or seriously injured in terrorist violence from 01.08.1982 onwards in Punjab and who have no able bodied person to support them and do not own any house in the State shall be given priority for allotment of one residential plot measuring 200 sq. yards free of costs subject to the condition that “no benefit by way of allotment of LIG House residential/commercial plot, shop, booth from any agency has been availed of by them in the State”. 13. The disqualification sought to be attached to the allotment made in favour of the petitioner is that there was an able bodied member, namely, her son who was serving as a Clerk to support the petitioner, hence she was ineligible for allotment on priority basis. 14. The above stated objection, in our considered view, deserves to be repelled for more than one reasons. Firstly, the petitioner in her application form dated 29.06.1989 specifically disclosed that her son was employed as a Clerk in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barnala. 14. The above stated objection, in our considered view, deserves to be repelled for more than one reasons. Firstly, the petitioner in her application form dated 29.06.1989 specifically disclosed that her son was employed as a Clerk in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barnala. His income certificate was also attached with the application form. These facts were duly considered by the Sub-Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the petitioner was found eligible for the subject allotment. It can be safely presumed that the Sub-Committee understood the Government Policy and rightly so, that the phrase “able bodied person to support” was relatable to the owning of “a house in the State of Punjab”. In other words, the person supporting ought to have been capable enough to provide a shelter to the distress dependent as a measure of social security. Since the income of the petitioner's son might have been insufficient to achieve the dual object, that the Sub-Committee declared the petitioner eligible. 15. Secondly, the petitioner thus never concealed any material fact from the authorities. Her eligibility was adjudged on consideration of true and correct facts only. Thirdly, the Government decision being a piece of beneficial and welfare policy deserves to be construed liberally. The exclusion clause of the policy merely meant that where a family was capable to build up a shelter for itself, the priority allotment free of costs need not be extended to such family. The Sub-Committee did not find the aforesaid condition as an impediment against allotment and took a conscious decision to allot the subject plot to the petitioner. The latest report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner and her son are still living in a charitable institution, namely, Nirankari Bhawan, fortifies and strengthens the afore-stated decision of the Sub-Committee. 16. The petitioner has admittedly not availed the benefit of allotment of any dwelling unit, shop, booth or plot from any other government agency. In this old age, her only hope to have a house as a measure of social security is the subject allotment. The action of the Board in cancelling the same apparently for commercial gains is wholly unjustified, unequitable and arbitrary. The belated cancellation of allotment does suggest that the action is actuated for the reasons other than the so called violations of Government policy at the time of allotment. 17. The action of the Board in cancelling the same apparently for commercial gains is wholly unjustified, unequitable and arbitrary. The belated cancellation of allotment does suggest that the action is actuated for the reasons other than the so called violations of Government policy at the time of allotment. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of cancellation dated 05.03.2004 (Annexure P-21) as well as the subsequent decision, if any, taken to hold the petitioner ineligible for allotment is hereby quashed. The respondent Board is directed to allot the same plot to the petitioner, if possible. However, if it has been allotted and possession given to another allottee, the petitioner shall be allotted another plot of equal size free of costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.