LABH SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted a residential site No. 104, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, measuring 186. 59 yds on lease hold basis. The price of the site and the ground rent was Rs. 20524.90 Ps. and Rs. 513.62 Ps. per year. Out of the price of Rs. 20524.90 Ps. a sum of Rs. 2112/- being 10% of the premium was paid by the petitioner with the application for allotment, Rs. 3019.23 Ps were paid subsequently and the remaining consideration, as per stipulation made in the allotment letter, was paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 in three yearly equal instalments of Rs. 5865.76 Ps on 10th July 86-87 and 10th July, 1988, respectively. The allotment letter No. 9580/LRP-3075/G.V. dated 4th June, 1985 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner is also paying the yearly ground rent amounting to Rs. 513.62 Ps. regularly without any default. As averred in the writ petition, the petitioner has by now paid the total price of the residential site to the respondents. Though as per clause 11 of allotment letter (Annexure P-1), the respondents were to deliver the possession of the said residential site, so allotted, to the petitioner, but despite repeated requests, the possession of the same was not handed over to him.

(2.) The petitioner, through this writ petition, has sought for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to deliver the possession of the aforesaid site to him. The case of the respondents is that the possession in respect of the above said site could not be handed over to the petitioner on administrative grounds. In para No. 7 of the written statement, it was specifically stated by the respondents that since the possession of plots No. 104 to 109 could not be delivered on account of certain administrative grounds, a clear request was made by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh vide letter No 22940/LIG-87/G-V dated 11th November, 1987 (Annexure R-1) to the Chief Architect and Secretary, Chandigarh Administration to earmark alternative plots of 7/1-2 marla category in favour of those to whom these plots were allotted. During the course of hearing, it was also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is to retire from service and he is to raise loans from the Government for the construction of the building over the said plot and that can only be possible if the possession is delivered to the petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the respective stands of the parties and perused the paper book carefully. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plot in question was allotted to the petitioner, but the possession of the same has not been handed over to him so far despite the fact that he has paid the entire price of the same. I am of the considered opinion that for the lapses of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are directed to allot an alternative plots/site to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within four months. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.