Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1243 (PNJ)

Rattan Singla v. State of Punjab

2013-09-16

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JASPAL SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 11.8.2003, Annexure P.2, whereby the allotment of Plot No.91 in 25.21 Acre scheme of Improvement Trust, Bathinda in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to charge more than the price which was circulated at the time of advertisement in the year 1989 and quash the order dated 16.7.2002, Annexure P.27 passed in this regard. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. In July/August 1989, respondent No.1 invited applications by 31.8.1989 from general public for allotment of different categories of plots in a scheme known as 25.21 Acre Scheme of Improvement Trust, Bathinda, situated at Guru Kanshi Marg (Goniana Road), Bathinda. The petitioner being eligible submitted his application on 29.8.1989 alongwith a draft of Rs. 5000/- on 28.8.1989 for allotment of plot measuring 200 square mtrs. (239 square yards) in the office of respondent No.2 vide receipt dated 29.8.1989, Annexure P.4. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit dated 29.8.1989, Annexure P.5 to the effect that he or his spouse did not own any residential house/plot in Union Territory of Chandigarh or any Urban Estate or in any scheme of the Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula. The petitioner made number of representations to the respondents for holding draw of lots. After the lapse of seven years on 18.8.1996, the draw of lots was held by Respondent No.2 and the petitioner received letter dated 17.3.1997 for allotment of the plot in question alongwith the Performa of affidavit which was to be submitted in the office of Respondent No.2. Similar letters were also issued to the other successful candidates. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his affidavit dated 20.3.1997, Anenxure P.9 alongwith forwarding letter to Respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner made various representations to the different authorities for issuance of allotment letter. The said representations were considered by Respondent No.3 exercising the powers of the Government and after perusal of the file and the affidavit dated 20.3.1997, he issued a direction dated 18.8.1999, Annexure P.14 to the Chairman Improvement Trust to issue allotment letter to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made various representations to the different authorities for issuance of allotment letter. The said representations were considered by Respondent No.3 exercising the powers of the Government and after perusal of the file and the affidavit dated 20.3.1997, he issued a direction dated 18.8.1999, Annexure P.14 to the Chairman Improvement Trust to issue allotment letter to the petitioner. On 30.8.1999, Annexure P.15, the Government reconsidered the order dated 18.8.1999 and decided to withdraw the same which was communicated to Respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner. Thereafter various representations were made by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary to the Government – respondent No.1 for considering his case sympathetically for allotment of plot at the rate of Rs. 421/- per square yard. After seeking opinion from the Legal Remembrancer, respondent No.2 issued allotment letter on 22.1.2001 to the petitioner at the total price of Rs. 2,09,723/-. On 14.2.2001, Annexure P.21, the petitioner filed representation to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Bathinda to the effect that the trust could not demand price at the rate of Rs.877.50 per square yard on the ground that at the time of advertisement in the year 1989, it was circulated at the rate of Rs. 421/- per square yard. On 19.2.2001, Annexure P.22, Respondent No.2 entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner which was signed by the then Executive Officer on 8.5.2001. On 11.6.2001, Annexure P.23, Respondent No.2 issued letter to the petitioner for deposit of sale price of Rs. 2,09,723/- through five half yearly installments. On 28.8.2002, Annexure P.30, Respondent No.2 handed over possession of the plot in question to the petitioner and since then he is in possession of the same. On 6.12.2002 and 4.2.2003, Annexures P.28 and P.29, the petitioner made representations to the Government against the rejection order dated 16.7.2002 vide which his request for reduction of the price was rejected. On 17.7.2003, the petitioner deposited Rs.2,38,041/- through installments with interest as well as enhanced price of Rs.18,285/- as demanded by Respondent No.2. Vide order dated 11.8.2003, Annexure P.2, Respondents No. 1 and 2 cancelled the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he had misconceived the facts in his affidavit. Hence the present petition. 3. Vide order dated 11.8.2003, Annexure P.2, Respondents No. 1 and 2 cancelled the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he had misconceived the facts in his affidavit. Hence the present petition. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it has been inter-alia, submitted that since the petitioner had purchased Plot No.451 in another scheme of the Improvement Trust as mentioned above between the date of application i.e. 1989 and the draw of lots in the year 1996, he became ineligible for the allotment in question. It was further submitted that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner to the effect that he or his spouse did not own any plot/house in any scheme of the Improvement Trust proved wrong. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 11.8.2003, Annexure P.2 cancelling the allotment of Plot No.91 in 25.21 Acre Scheme of Improvement Trust, Bathinda in favour of the petitioner, is bad in law. It was argued that the said scheme was floated by Respondent Improvement Trust in 1989 in which the petitioner was declared successful for allotment of the plot in question in the draw of lots held on 18.8.1996 and the letter in this regard was issued on 22.1.2001 and sale agreement dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure P.22) was entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner’s wife had purchased Plot measuring 150 square yards in the open market bearing residential plot No.451 in Kamla Nehru Nagar Development Scheme of Improvement Trust, Bathinda in 1993 as it was uncertain whether the petitioner would be successful in the draw of lots in respect of 1989 scheme. It was pointed out that the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 29.8.1989 Annexure P.5, wherein it was specifically stated that he or his spouse jointly or severally had not been allotted any plot/house in Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban State or in any scheme of Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the State of Haryana, which was in conformity with the conditions of brochure. Relying upon following observations in Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2011 , it was contended that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions on the date of brochure and therefore, the subsequent change whereby the petitioner had purchased 150 square yards plot in the name of his wife from open market in the year 1993 would not dis-entitle him to retain the plot which was allotted to him in the draw of lots in 1996: - “13......(i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority...” 5. It was further submitted that vide letter Annexure P.6 issued on 17.3.1997, the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit in the following form:- “I _____ son of _______aged ____ years, resident of ______do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that I am not dependent on any person and that I or my spouse, jointly or severally has not been allotted any plot/house in Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate or in any scheme of Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the state of Haryana, since submitting an application for 25.21 acres Development Scheme, till date. Deponent Verification I do hereby further solemnly affirm and declare that the particulars given above are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Deponent.” The affidavit in the aforesaid form was duly filed by the petitioner. Reference was also made to legal opinion from the Legal Remembrancer dated 18.8.1999, Annexure P.14 though the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 30.8.1999, Annexure P.15. Support was gathered from the judgments in Notan Dass Manchanda v. Chandigarh Housing Board, AIR 2002 Punjab 37, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. The Special Secretary to Govt. Reference was also made to legal opinion from the Legal Remembrancer dated 18.8.1999, Annexure P.14 though the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 30.8.1999, Annexure P.15. Support was gathered from the judgments in Notan Dass Manchanda v. Chandigarh Housing Board, AIR 2002 Punjab 37, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. The Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and others, LPA No.137 of 2007, decided by this Court on 13.8.2007 and B.L.Sreedhar and others v. K.M.Munireddy (dead) and others, AIR 2003 SC 578 . 6. Lastly, it was urged that Charanjeet Singh’s case, Annexure R.2/1 on which the Improvement Trust had relied upon, would not take away the right of the petitioner as it is not a binding precedent. Under Rule 14 of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules 1983, the Government had the power to relax and therefore, the order dated 6.12.2000, Annexure P.32, whereby the Government had interpreted the provisions in favour of the petitioner would amount to relaxation being made by the Government. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Improvement Trust submitted that there could not be any estoppel against the statute. Reliance was placed upon judgments in Kesar Singh and another v. State of Punjab through its Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and another, 2012(3) RCR (Civil) 825 and Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh etc., AIR 1999 SC 1347 . It was argued that the eligibility condition was required to be seen at the time of draw of lots and not at the time of submitting the application. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The scheme was introduced in the year 1989 and as required under the brochure, the petitioner fulfilled the condition as he was not allotted any plot in any Scheme floated by Government or Governmental Agency at concessional rate or was not owning any plot in any of the places specified therein. It would be relevant to see the eligibility of the applicant as per brochure on the date of application in the year 1989. However, there would be an exception where during the period between date of application and the date of draw of lots, an applicant acquired plot on concessional terms from Government or Governmental agency, his eligibility would cease to be effective. However, there would be an exception where during the period between date of application and the date of draw of lots, an applicant acquired plot on concessional terms from Government or Governmental agency, his eligibility would cease to be effective. The purpose of incorporating such a condition in the brochure was to see that any body who had acquired property either through Government or Governmental Agency at concessional rate be made ineligible. Affidavit dated 29.8.1989, Annexure P.5 duly certified in that behalf was filed alongwith the application. However, as the matter was pending before this court wherein the scheme was under challenge, the petitioner from open market purchased plot measuring 150 square yards in Kamla Nehru Nagar Development Scheme of Improvement Trust, Bathinda in the name of his wife in the year 1993. Further, vide letter dated 17.3.1997, Annexure P.6, affidavit as required by the Improvement Trust was duly submitted as the Trust had sought an affidavit that there was no allotment of any plot/house in Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate or in any Scheme of Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the State of Haryana. The petitioner was fulfilling the conditions of eligibility and in such a situation, the subsequent development of purchase of plot from open market would not render him ineligible for the draw of lots held in 1996, especially where no allotment was made on concessional rate from any source between the date of application and the date of draw of lots. The petitioner was, thus, entitled to retain Plot No.91 allotted to him. This Court in Notan Dass Manchanda and Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority’s cases (supra) under similar circumstances where the petitioner had purchased the plot from open market and had not acquired any property at a concessional rate through Government or Governmental agency held that the same would not render him ineligible for allotment of plot at a concessional rate. 10. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noticed that those were the cases relating to promissory estoppel which is not the case in hand. Further, Annexure R.2/1 in the case of Charanjeet on which reliance has been placed by the respondents, was passed by Secretary to Government of Punjab and is not a binding precedent on this Court in view of legal position noticed hereinbefore. Further, Annexure R.2/1 in the case of Charanjeet on which reliance has been placed by the respondents, was passed by Secretary to Government of Punjab and is not a binding precedent on this Court in view of legal position noticed hereinbefore. Accordingly, we find that order dated 11.8.2003, Annexure P.2 cannot be legally sustained. It is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 11. The summoned record be returned to learned counsel for respondent No.2 against proper receipt.