Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1273 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh Saini v. State of Punjab

2013-09-20

AJAY K.MITTAL, JASPAL SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 18.4.1994, Annexure P.9, passed by respondent No.3 – Commissioner, Urban Estate Development Board, Chandigarh, whereby the allotment of plot made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is resident of Punjab and is serving in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. Vide letter dated 6.5.1987, Annexure P.1, the petitioner was informed by the Superintendent Housing I Branch, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chandigarh that the Government had decided to allot a plot of 250 square yards to him. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23.2.1988, Annexure P.2 asked the petitioner to complete the formalities i. e. deposit of 1/4th cost of the plot amounting to `7406.25 by bank draft and file an affidavit regarding income of family from all sources on a stamp paper of 3/. The petitioner filed the requisite affidavit vide Annexure P.4. Vide letter dated 12.11.1991, Annexure P.5, respondent No.2 again asked the petitioner to deposit the amount of `7406.25 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. It was also made clear that in case the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, the proposal for cancellation of allotment shall be sent to the government. On 29.11.1991, the petitioner got prepared the draft of `7410/Annexure P.6. According to the petitioner, there was no delay on his part but as a precautionary measure he wrote a letter to the Minister, Housing and Urban Development which was got entered in the diary register dated 12.4.1993. Vide letter dated 18.4.1994, Annexure P.9, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.2 that in accordance with the decision taken in the meeting held under the chairmanship of the Commissioner on 6.1.1994, it was decided that the offer be declined and the amount deposited be refunded to the petitioner. As such, the draft deposited by the petitioner was returned and the allotment made was cancelled. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment of plot made in favour of the petitioner, he has approached this court through the present writ petition. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 4. As such, the draft deposited by the petitioner was returned and the allotment made was cancelled. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment of plot made in favour of the petitioner, he has approached this court through the present writ petition. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 4. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.4.1994 without filing an appeal before the Chief Administrator under Section 11 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 1964. Further, the necessary parties have not been impleaded in the writ petition. On merits, it has been stated that vide letter dated 6.5.1987, the petitioner had been allotted a plot measuring 250 square yards out of discretionary quota of the government subject to the completion of requisite formalities within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter and inspite of grant of opportunities, the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated period. Thereafter, in accordance with the decision taken vide letter dated 18.1.1994 by the Additional Housing Commissioner, Annexure R.2, the offer of allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide letter dated 18.4.1994 (Annexure P.9). On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been made. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount as required was deposited in time. The respondents had granted him extension of time to deposit the amount and there was no delay on his part. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents besides supporting the impugned order, submitted that inspite of grant of opportunities to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the petitioner did not do the needful and thereafter on examining the entire matter, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioner was offered a plot measuring 250 square yards out of discretionary quota vide letter dated 6.5.1987. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioner was offered a plot measuring 250 square yards out of discretionary quota vide letter dated 6.5.1987. A reminder was issued on 23.2.1988 requiring the petitioner to complete the formalities for allotment of plot whereby he was required to complete all formalities and deposit 1/4th cost of the plot i.e.`7406.25 P. The petitioner only filed the affidavit but did not deposit the requisite amount. The petitioner was given various opportunities by the respondents to deposit the amount within the stipulated period but he failed to do the needful. Further, no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner and vide Annexure P.9, the offer made to the petitioner was cancelled as he had failed to comply with the formalities of depositing 1/4th amount of the plot within stipulated time. The respondent authorities after examining the entire matter in detail had passed the impugned order. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s Shadi Ram Jai Bhagwav. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR (Civil) 763 had held that mere payment of initial amount alongwith the application does not confer any right of allotment. It was noticed as under: “20. Mr. Jain submitted that the petitioners had paid Rs.5000/for the allotment of plots to the Market Committee. It may be so. However, this confers no right. The petitioners have not placed anything on record to show that they were promised allotment. They have made no prayer for the refund of that money. If they want, they can seek the refund.” 9. In view of the above, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.