SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(P&H) 146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hari Pal Verma
CWP No.12933 of 2001(O&M)
Surjit Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 02/03/2015}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondents No.2 & 3:Mr. Rupinder S. Khosla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K.S. Mamrat, Advocate.

Headnote:Allotment of Plot--By merely submitting an application in response to a public advertisement, the petitioner does not get any right of allotment of a plot--The right is only of consideration--The petitioners have remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots and then failed to respond to another chance for participation in the process of allotment--Held; petitioner not entitled to allotment--Writ dismissed. (Paras 10 & 22)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.12933, 19680 of 2001 and 1552 of 2002 wherein the petitioners are disputing the rate of allotment of plots at Rs.3750/- per square yard. The claim of the petitioners is that the rate of allotment should have been Rs.1200/- per square yard.

2. Since the issues are common in all the three writ petitions, therefore, all the petitions are taken up and being decided together. However for the facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CWP No.12933 of 2001 wherein the petitioner purchased registration of allotment of a plot from one Raj Mal who applied for a 10 marla plot in the year 1983-84 and was granted registration No.120 SC. The transfer in his favour was allowed. The petitioner was informed on 29.04.1997 (Annexure P-3) that draw of lots in respect of pending applications would be conducted in which the petitioner was called upon to furnish identification documents and also to furnish an affidavit that he or his family does not own any plot, house or flat in Mohali. It was also mentioned that allotment shall be made as per the new rates which are as follows:-

a) upto 100 sq. yard. Rs.1800.00 per sq. yard

b) from 101 to 249 sq. yards Rs.2700.00 per sq. yard

c) Above 250 sq. yards Rs.3600.00 per sq. Yard.

3. The petitioner made up the amount of earnest money required. The petitioner objected to the said circular on 09.05.1997 (Annexure P-4) contending that the conditions regarding price of the plot and ratio of allotment to old applicants are at variance with those originally advertised, the same will be accepted as per ruling of the Court. On 01.03.2001 (Annexure P-6/T), the respondent communicated that a scheme has been formulated for allotment of plots in Sectors 76 to 80 Urban Estate, Mohali permitting the petitioner to apply up to 16.03.2001 and to make up the earnest money at the prevailing rate i.e. Rs.3350/- per square yard for a plot up to 200 square yard and Rs.3750/- per square yard for a plot size above 200 square yards. Since the petitioner did not make up the earnest money, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs.30,000/- was refunded on 24.07.2001. It is thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. In the written statement, the stand is that Raj Mal applied for 250 square yard plot in the year 1983 by depositing Rs.5000/- as earnest money. He was asked to give his consent by 20.09.1993 for draw of lots in respect of vacant plots in Sector 70 at the rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard but Raj Mal did not give consent and therefore, his name was not included in the draws held on 28.01.1994 and 01.08.1995. However, subsequently, the transfer of the registration was allowed subject to completion of necessary formalities. It is asserted that the letter dated 09.05.1997 (Annexure P-4) was not received in the office. It is also pointed out that the original applicant agreed to abide by the terms of the application and one of them (condition No.12) was that the plots will be given at the rate which prevailed at the time of allotment. After transfer of registration, the petitioner also impliedly agreed to be governed by the undertakings given by the original applicant. It is pointed out that there was no promise for allotment of plots in Sector 70. All these applicants who had opted for plots in Sector 70 had given their assent to the new rates and were allotted plots in Sector 70 and Sector 69 at the new rates. All those applicants who were unsuccessful were given another chance to apply for allotment of plots in Sectors being floated i.e. Sector 76 to Sector 80. The petitioner did not opt for allotment of plot in such sectors and therefore, he does not have any valid grievance.

5. In response to an interim order dated 05.12.2013 an affidavit has been filed by the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority on 17.12.2013. It is averred that there were 219 applicants





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top