DALJIT KAUR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her application dated 11.9.1969 for allotment of plot measuring 200 sq. yards.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards in Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) vide application dated 11.9.1969. She deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money and was assigned registration No. 5223. The petitioner received memo dated 1.2.1974 Annexure P-2 wherein she was informed that it was proposed to give priority in the allotment of plots. The priority was to be on the basis of mode of making payments i.e. (1) those who make lump-sum payment of balance price, (2) those who pay in two equated annual instalments, (3) those who make payment of balance price in three equated instalments, and (4) who make payment of balance price as per existing system i.e. the balance amount payable in six annual equated instalments. The petitioner was asked the category in which she would like her application to be considered. Thereafter, she was informed vide memo letter dated 7.12.1974 Annexure P-1 by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, Chandigarh, that the Directorate of Urban Estates had decided to categorise the residential plots in two groups i.e. Group No. 1 for plots measuring from 250 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards and Group II for plots measuring from 100 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards. The plots ranging from 250 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards fell in Group I and plots ranging from 100 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards fell in Group II. It was indicated that the plots in Group I would be sold on cash down basis except in the case of Punjab Government and defence (including B.S.F.) employees, who were to be allotted plots on deferred payment basis. However, the allotment of plots ranging from 100 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards were to be allotted on deferred payment and the price was payable in four annual equated instalments. Plots in Group II were indicated to be available for allotment to specified income group indicated against each size of plots. The petitioner had applied for 250 sq. yards and therefore she fell in Group I category. She was asked to remit the balance amount of Rs. 14725/- to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate respondent No. 2 by 21.12.1974 and resultantly she would continue to enjoy her original seniority for allotment of plot in case the balance price was remitted within the stipulated period. The said memo dated 7.12.1974 Annexure P-1 further provides that if on account of changed circumstances, the petitioner required a smaller size plot either on cash payment or on instalment basis as per Government Policy enumerated therein, option was to be intimated up to 24.12.1974 along with bank draft of the price equivalent to the size of the plot to enable the office to process her application further. The petitioner has not made any mention as to whether she exercised any of the options in terms of the letter dated 7.12.1974 (Annexure P-1). She was not allotted any plot upto the year 1981. However, the Directorate of Housing Urban Development addressed memo dated 7.4.1981 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner wish reference to her application registered at Sr. No. 5223. It was intimated that the Government had revised the policy regarding the disposal of residential sites in the Urban Estate. As per new policy, the residential plots were again grouped in two categories. Group I related to plots measuring 250 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards. It was intimated that the eligibility for allotment of plots in Group II i.e., plots measuring 100 sq. yards, 150 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards shall be determined on the basis of income criteria indicated therein. The income criteria provided that annual income from all sources in respect of plots measuring 200 sq. yards, was to be from Rs. 12,000/- to 20,000/-, for 150 sq. yards the annual income from all sources was to be Rs. 8000/- upto 12000/- and for 100 sq. yards upto Rs. 8000/-. It was also informed that plots in Group II would be allotted at the reserve price fixed by the Government, whereas pots in Group I would be disposed of in open auction. The old applicants however, had option to apply for the allotment of plots in the eligible category on the basis of the afore stated income criteria. This option was to be exercised within 30 days from 7.4.1981. The option exercised was to be treated as final. The petitioner was informed that she had paid an amount of Rs. 500/- along with the application and that the price of land in Phase XI of Urban Estate S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yards in relation to plots measuring upto 200 sq. yards. The petitioner was requested to remit the balance amount to the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, Chandigarh through bank draft to make it equal to 25% of the amount for the plot if opted in Group-II. She was to continue to enjoy her original seniority in the registration for the allotment of the plot in case she remitted the balance amount within stipulated period. The petitioner submitted her option for 200 sq. yards plots vide letter dated 27.4.1981 Annexure P-4. She requested to convert her plot from 250 sq. yards to 200 sq. yards and she deposited a sum of Rs. 3750/- towards 25% of the remaining amount worked out for 200 sq. yards plot at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard which came to Rs. 17,000/- and 25% of the amount was Rs. 4250/-. After deduction Rs. 500/- which was already paid, the balance came to Rs. 3750/- The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4000/- for 200 sq. yard. She also gave her permanent address at Amritsar as also an address at Chandigarh. The petitioner was then asked to submit an affidavit regarding income and affidavit regarding allotment as specimen proforma, which were also complied with. She was given receipt for the amount of Rs. 4000/- Thereafter the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 6.9.1992 by the Estate Officer who promised to allot her a plot immediately, but nothing was done in spite of numerous visits. The petitioner further states that she was called on various occasions but without results. Ultimately she served a legal notice dated 25.6.1992 Annexure P-5 through her counsel. The respondents in their reply dated 30.7.1992 Annexure P-6 accepted the position that the name of the petitioner had been included in draw held in the year 1985 but she did not succeed in the draw. Therefore, her application was pending and her name would be considered according to policy. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging that the action of the respondents in conducting draw for allotment was absolutely arbitrary and in violation of the policy decision dated 7.4.1981 Annexure P-3. The petitioner was to enjoy her original seniority number. In case the plots were to be allotted through draw of lots then there was no use of having seniority number of the year 1969.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.