Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2346 (PNJ)

Shakuntla Devi v. State Of Haryana

2019-08-27

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, RAJIV SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.11.2010 in CWP No.20313 of 2010 titled 'Shakuntla Devi vs. State of Haryana and others' whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Pursuant to her application on 17.03.1972 for allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards in Urban Estate Panchkula Haryana, the appellant was allotted a plot bearing No.219 measuring 500 sq. yards in Sector-7, Urban Estate Panchkula vide memo dated 26.02.1973. She had paid an amount of Rs.16,500/- as its sale consideration. She submitted an application dated 13.02.1975 to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula requesting that in the allotment form the names of her five sons be included along with her name. This request was accepted vide memo dated 22.04.1975. The names of her sons were included in the allotment letter. 3. It appears that thereafter the allottees jointly applied for approval of the Building Plans which were approved in the joint names of the appellant and her sons vide memo dated 26.03.1976. 4. On 18.10.2010 i.e., about 35 years after the inclusion of the names of her sons in the allotment letter, the appellant submitted a representation to the Estate Officer to maintain the records as per the original allotment letter. As no action was taken thereon she filed the writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to maintain the record in respect of ownership of H.No.219, Sector-7, Panchkula in the name of the appellant as per the original allotment letter. 5. It was her case that the letter dated 13.02.1975 for inclusion of the names of her five sons in the order of allotment was got signed by them under duress and coercion. It was further contended that the inclusion of the names of her sons in the allotment letter was in contravention to the terms and conditions of allotment. Clause 14 of the letter of allotment prohibited transfer by any mode without the sanction/ approval of the Chief Administrator. It was also her case that as per Clause 13 of the allotment letter fragmentation of the plot was impermissible. Allotment in the joint names of her sons ipso facto amounted to fragmentation. 6. The learned Single Judge held that there was no violation of clauses 13 and 14 of the conditions of allotment. It was also her case that as per Clause 13 of the allotment letter fragmentation of the plot was impermissible. Allotment in the joint names of her sons ipso facto amounted to fragmentation. 6. The learned Single Judge held that there was no violation of clauses 13 and 14 of the conditions of allotment. The plot had been allotted initially in the name of the appellant. She requested that the allotment be made jointly in her name and that of her sons. This did not tantamount to a transfer. Negating the ground of fragmentation the learned Single Judge held that there was nothing on record to indicate that there was any fragmentation. In fact at no stage was fragmentation asked for. In any case, the petition having been filed 35 years after the joint allotment, did not warrant interference by the Court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the act of issuance of allotment letter in the joint names of the appellant and her sons did not constitute transfer and that there was no fragmentation. He argued that allotment of one plot in the name of five co-sharers clearly amounts to its fragmentation. 8. We are not persuaded to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel. Further, even if there was some infraction of the terms and conditions of the allotment by including the names of the sons of the appellant along with her in the allotment letter, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that interference by the Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction 35 years later was not warranted. 9. There is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid order. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.