ALOK SARWAL Vs. U T ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the letter of allotment of an industrial plot in Phase-III, Chandigarh and requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 66,74,825/- as representing 25% of the premium and giving other directions. The impugned letter stipulates that if the petitioner is not interested in the allotment, the offer already made on 24.08.2007 would be withdrawn.

(2.) The case has a longer history that would require a brief mention. The Chandigarh Administration had invited applications from all the persons seeking for allotment of industrial plots in different sizes ranging from 10 marlas to 4 kanals lands in April, 1981 and after receiving the applications, a Screening Committee had determined the plots to be allotted in different sizes. Draw of lots had been made on 30.11.1982 and the petitioner was one such allottee. But the scheme did not come through, when the administration found that it had not made a correct reckoning of the sizes of the plot that could be made available to persons, without taking into note certain prohibitions and restrictions under the Forest Act and the Aircraft Act. The size of the plots that could be offered had to be reduced and while some of the original allottees were prepared to consent for plots of lesser sizes, the petitioner and a host of their persons did not consent for allotment of a plots of lesser sizes. There had been litigations when several of the persons, who had been denied the benefit of the offer, filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the decision of the Chandigarh Administration.

(3.) The matter was finally adjudicated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors., 2004 6 SCC 765. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the several classes of persons namely of persons, who were consenting parties to the altered offers made by the reducing size of the plots and also persons, who were non-consentees of such alternative allocation. The judgment details several directions and to our case, the directions given in paragraph 40(4) becomes relevant, since we are considering the case of the petitioner, who was a non-consentee. The clause is reproduced as under: