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

2025 Supreme(P&H) 511

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, VIKAS SURI, JJ.
Gurcharan Singh - Appellant 
Vs.
State Of Punjab And Another - Respondent 
CWP-16618-2017
Decided On : 21-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate Ms. Rinky Gupta, Advocate

Court upheld the petitioner's rights based on principles of natural justice and promissory estoppel, quashing arbitrary administrative decisions regarding plot allotment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioner sought to quash the rejection of allotment of plot due to the cancellation of his allotment post a lottery draw - The decision making by authorities lacked valid reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 17-29)

(B) Administrative Law - Burden of proof - The officials failed to substantiate claims regarding loss of records, thus affecting petitioner's rights - The court emphasized on the necessity of fair procedure and equity in public administrative decisions. (Paras 22-28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a plot in 1982 and was allotted a plot in 1999, which was later canceled without proper notice. The petitioner sought restoration in 2006 after learning about the allotment and cancellation.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the cancellation was invalid, and directed restoration of the plot along with compensation due to the mishandling by the Trust.

Issues: Main issues included the legality of plot cancellation and the Trust's failure to communicate effectively with the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the cancellation was an arbitrary decision lacking support of evidence, emphasizing the principle of promissory estoppel.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed, with directions for restoration of the plot and compensation. (Paras 30).

Table of Content
1. facts concerning the applicant's eligibility and processes around plot allotment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 13)
2. court's observations on the arbitrary nature of the trust's decisions. (Para 17 , 18 , 22 , 29)
3. important rationales regarding the legal principles applied to ensure justice to the applicant. (Para 19 , 21 , 27)
4. concluding remarks on the court's decision and remedies granted. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, wherebys he seeks the quashing of the order dated 20.01.2016 (Annexure P-17), as became passed by the respondents, wherebys the petitioner's claim for allotment of the subject plot became rejected. Furthermore, the petitioner also seeks the quashing of order dated 06.12.2012 (Annexure P-10) whereby the resolution dated 30.03.2012, as passed by respondent No.2, became rejected by respondent No.1, besides seeks the quashing of the order dated 04.08.2000 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2 wherebys the allotment of plot bearing No.1005-G, measuring 125 sq. yards situated in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana to the petitioner (Annexure P-4) through lucky draw, stood cancelled.

2. A further prayer is made for the issuance of a mandamus, thus directing the respondents to allot and give physical possession to the petitioner of plot No.1005-G, measuring 125 sq. yards, situated in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case, are that the Town Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, (Punjab) (hereinafter referred to as the Trust') invited applications from the general public in the year 1982, rather for allotment through lucky draw, of several 125 square yards residential plots under 475 acres scheme. The petitioner was then residing in Haryana and was fully eligible to apply for the said plot. He had vide application dated 26.11.1982 applied for a plot measuring 125 sq. yards. The said application became accompanied by all the requisite documents. The petitioner had also vide receipt No.48179 dated 26.11.1982, thus deposited the requisite earnest money of Rs.950/- in the office of Trust. The application of the petitioner became allotted registration No.1673.

4. The lucky draw of plots was conducted by the Trust, on 10.09.1999, and plot No.1005-G of 125 sq. yards was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The Trust did not give any intimation, regarding the date of draw of lots or qua the result of the draw to the petitioner, thus at his registered address or at any other address, rather either before or after the lucky draw. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the date of conducting of the draw of lots or whether the allotment of the plot is made in his favour or anything else about the draw or the allotment of the plot(s).

5. Subsequently, the then Chairman of the Trust vide a blanket order No.LET/2000/7920 dated 04.09.2000 (Annexure P-5), cancelled the allotment of all the 19 plots as made to the successful allottees, thus in the draw which became conducted, on 10.09.1999.

6. In the year 2006, the petitioner from a known person from Ludhiana, came to know about the draw by the Trust, and about the allotment of the subject plot in his favour. Soon thereafter the petitioner went to the office of the Trust to know the fate of his application. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know both about the conducting of the draw of plot in his favour and also about the allotment of the subject plot, in the year 1999, and subsequently he was also awakened about the cancellation of the allotment rather on the ground, that his application was lost. Then the officials of the Trust informed the petitioner, that the plot can be restored to him, on an application being submitted along with the necessary documents. Immediately, on 06.11.2006 the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-6) to the Chairman of the Trust along with necessary proof(s), whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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