The tentative price fixed under the letter of allotment could be enhanced only in terms of the Rules as an additional price and that there was no provision in the Act or the Rules for the refixation of the tentative price.

1. The petitioner is an Educational Society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860, and is running a school under the name of Gian Jyoti Public School, Phase II, Sector 54, S.A.S. Nagar, District Ropar, Punjab. As the school did not have any proper building and was being run in rented premises, the petitioner applied to the Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab, on 6/07/1979, for the allotment of land in the urban estate S.A.S. Nagar for the construction of a school building. On consideration of the application, respondent No. 1 issued a letter offering allotment of land measuring 5.076 acres in Phase II, Sector 54, S.A.S. Nagar, at the tentative rate of Rs. 30.00 per square yard making a total of Rs. 7,37,035.20 paise and directed that 25% of the tentative price mentioned above be deposited within 30 days. In compliance with the offer of allotment Annexure P2 dated 24th of April, 1984, referred to above, 25% of the tentative sale price was deposited within the due time. Vide Annexure P4, dated 30/05/1984, respondent No. 1 allotted the aforementioned land to the petitioner on the terms and conditions incorporated in the said letter, the tentative price being Rs. 30.00 per square yard. It appears that on account of operation Blue Star which commenced in the first week of June 1984, the actual and physical possession of the land in question was not delivered to the petitioner but the symbolic possession was delivered to the petitioner vide letter Annexure P6 dated 13/06/1984. In pursuance of the allotment made to the petitioner it appears that certain steps were taken by the petitioner to start the construction of the building. However, vide letter dated 14/09/1984, Annexure P8, handing over of the symbolic possession to the petitioner vide Annexure P6 was cancelled. The represented against the order Annexure P8 and while the representation was pending, certain instalments with regard to the sale price determined in Annexure P4 were paid and accepted by the respondents. The averments in the writ petition further are that vide letter dated 21/05/1987, Annexure P15, the tentative sale price fixed under Annexure P4 was redetermined and a fresh allotment at the rate of Rs. 255.00 per square yard (that too being provisional and subject to further enhancement), was fixed and it was further directed that 25% of the total cost which was now determined at Rupees 62,64,799.20 Paise be deposited within 30 days. The petitioner aggrieved by the unilateral enhancement of the price which had been inflated to the extent of 850%, made various representations to the Government which were routed through the Secretary of the Department as also to the Governor of Punjab. Copies of various representations have been appended as annexures with the writ petition. The petitioner also sought personal hearing with the Secretary of the Department and also the Governor of Punjab but this too was not accorded to him and vide Annexure P27, dated 25/01/1990 and Annexure P32 dated 20/09/1990, the petitioner was given the choice of accepting the allotment at the rate of Rs. 255.00 per square yard. However, it is pertinent to mention here that vide Annexure P29 dated 17/09/1990, the Estate Officer had already cancelled the allotment presumably on the ground that the remaining amount determined by the department had not been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned Annexures P8, P15, P21, P27, P29 and P32 appended to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the Rules), the price fixed tentatively under Annexure P4 could be enhanced only in terms of the Rules as an additional price and that there was no provision in the Act or the Rules for the refixation of the tentative