(1.) THE petitioner, who is a non resident Indian, in pursuance of the offer made by the State of Punjab, deposited a sum of Rs. 13,500/- on August 30, 1973 as the tentative price of 500 sq. yard plot in Mohali. Vide Annexure P-3, the Estate Officer informed the petitioner that plots would be allotted to the applicants in order of seniority from amongst those who had made full payment although no specific period for allotment was indicated. Vide Annexure P-4 dated October 3, 1975, the petitioner was once again informed about the decision of the Government to make allotment to Indians who were settled abroad and who had made the full payment against price of the plot. The petitioner was accordingly requested to send a bank draft in foreign exchange for the equivalent of Rs. 15,525/- within a period of 90 days. The petitioner accordingly sent a draft for the amount claimed plus some amount towards realisation charges of the cheque under covering letter dated December 8, 1975, Annexure P-5. Vide Annexure P-7, the Estate Officer informed the petitioner that a plot of 500 sq. yards had been earmarked for allotment and the allotment order would be issued in due course. Vide Annexure P-8, however the petitioner was informed that it had been decided to allot a plot in Phase-VI, measuring 930 sq yards approximately at a price of Rs. 59,334/- and the petitioner was requested to send a bank draft for Rs. 30,309//- so that the necessary allotment could be made to him. The petitioner there-after vide covering letter, Annexure P-9 to the petition, sent the amount claimed towards the price of a 930 sq. yards plot. The petitioner was thereafter informed through Annexure P-11 that the price for the plot of 500 sq. yard plot had now been determined at Rs. 1,10,735/- and as the petitioner had already deposited some amount, he was requested to deposit the balance within 30 days of the issue of the letter The Estate Officer thereafter vide Annexure P-14 dated June 17, 1987 informed the Director, Department of Housing and Urban Estates Punjab, that the petitioner had submitted an application for the allotment of a 500 sq. yards plot in. 1973 but a plot measuring 930 sq yards in Phase-VI had been earmarked for him for which he made the full payment in February, 1987. It was stated, however, that the allotment of this plot could not be made as the land had not been acquired. The Director was also informed that under the new policy the price of the plots having been enhanced, the petitioner was now required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,735/- towards the price of a 500 sq. yards plot. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that once the full price had been claimed from him and he had made the full payment, the respondents could not be allowed to raise the price unilaterally and without any justification. It has also been pointed out with reference to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh Saully v. State of Punjab, 1989 P. L. J. 605, that in an identical situation this Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the plot at the original price as he had made the full payment at that rate.
(2.) THE respondents in their reply have relied on various judgments of this Court in order to contend that as the allotment had not actually been made, no right accrued to the petitioner so as to insist on a particular price at which the allotment should be made. It has also been stated in the written statement and I quote from it:
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the case is fully covered by Ajit Singh's case (supra ). A cumulative reading of Annexure P-3 alongwith Annexure P-4 shows that the tentative price claimed in Annexure P-3 thereafter took the shape of full price which was paid under Annexure P-4. It is also clear from Annexure P-14, which is a communication from the Estate Officer to the Director of the Department, that the full price had been paid by the petitioner for a 930 sq yards plot in February, 1980. The stand of the respondents, quoted above, that the full prices is always tentative, is on the face of it absurd. The Government is entitled to enhance the price provided there is some justification for doing so and that justification has to be made out giving facts and figures to the Court. The further stand of the respondents that the price was tentative as the land had not yet been acquired is again without any force. Once the Department decided to allot a plot at a particular price which they claimed to be the full price then irrespective of the fact whether the land had been acquired or not would disentitle them to enhance the price later. The further stand of the respondents that no vested right had accrued to the petitioner as the allotment had not been made is also of no avail. The matter before this Court in this writ petition is not the question of allotment of land but the price at which it is to be allotted. I am of the view that the petitioner having paid the full price claimed by the respondents was entitled to the allotment of a plot of 500 sq. yards at the price given in Annexure P-l and thereafter enhanced and deposited vide Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively.