JAGJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of the memo dated 15.10.1999 (Annexure P.13) issued by the Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Mohali (respondent No. 3) requiring the petitioner to pay the dues of instalments of tentative price in respect of the plot which was allotted to her in 1994 in pursuance of the transfer application filed by Shri Malagar Singh, sub-attorney of Shri Balbir Singh, the original allottee.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that vide memo Annexure P.1 dated 27.2.1987, plot No. 1281 measuring 250 square yards in Sector 70, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) was allotted to Shri Balbir Singh on a provisional price of Rs. 58,125/- with a stipulation that tentative price of the plot would be intimated after its approval by the government. After about 2 years and 4 months, the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar vide memo Annexure P.4 dated 21.6.1989 acknowledged the deposit of total provisional price by Shri Balbir Singh and informed him that he will have to pay the additional price, if any, determined by the government. After another 2 years, the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar vide memo Annexure P.5 dated 24.6.1991 informed Shri Balbir Singh that the price of the plot has been determined at Rs. 1,36,827.60 and, therefore, he should pay the balance price amounting to Rs. 78,702.60. It, however, appears that instead of paying the price determined by the government, Shri Balbir Singh, through his sub-attorney sold the plot to the petitioner in the year 1994. The application for transfer of the plot submitted by the sub-attorney was accepted by the Urban Estates Department and to this effect, memo dated 26.4.1995 was sent to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, SAS Nagar along with the re-allotment letter. In the meanwhile, the price of the plots allotted by the Urban Estates Department was increased on account of payment of enhanced compensation to the land-owners and in pursuance of the notice Annexure P.10 issued by respondent No. 3, the petitioner deposited the enhanced price vide demand draft No. 214454 dated 2.9.1994. After 5 years, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned memo requiring the petitioner to deposit the instalments of tentative price. The representation made by her against the demand or tentative price was indirectly rejected by the said respondent vide letter Annexure P.15.

(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to agree with her. Section 3(1) of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulations) Act, 1964 (for short, the 1964 Act) empowers the State Government to declare any area comprising the land belonging to it or acquired by it whether situate within or out of the limits of a local authority to be an urban estate for the purpose of the Act. Sub- section (2) of Section 3 provides that the State Government may sell, lease or otherwise transfer, whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to the State Government in an urban estate on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules made under the Act, think fit to impose. Proviso to this sub-section lays down that the sale, lease or other transfer of any land in an urban estate shall not be made in contravention of the requirements of a lay-out plan or zoning plan, if any, prepared in respect of such urban estate or part thereof and approved by the prescribed authority in accordance with the procedure laid down by the State Government from time to time. Section 23(1) contains an omnibus provision empowering the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the 1964 Act. Under Section 23(2)(a) and (b), the government is competent to make rules to determine the terms and conditions on which any land or building may be transferred by the government and the manner in which the consideration money for any transfer may be paid. In exercise of that power, the State Government framed the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 (for Short, the Rules). Rules 2(aa), (2)(e), 4 and 5 of the Rules, which have bearing on the decision of this petition read as under :