SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 30.7.2013, Annexure P.10 passed by respondent No.1 Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab, whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a 100 square yards plot in Eco City, Phase 1 at New Chandigarh has been rejected inspite of his being declared successful in the draw of lots for Plot No.6, Block 1, Street No.15 of Eco City, New Chandigarh, in riot victims/terrorist victims category.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. Respondent No.3 GMADA advertised 740 plots of various sizes in Eco City, Phase I at New Chandigarh on 21.10.2011. As per brochure, there were 10 plots of 100 square yards for riot/terrorist victims category which were later on increased to eleven. The petitioner submitted his application form for a plot measuring 100 square yards under riot/terrorist victims category. He also deposited earnest money of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The petitioner was declared successful in the draw of lots for Plot No.6, Block 1, Street No.15 Eco City, Phase I at New Chandigarh and was directed to submit the required documents in the office of Respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, as per eligibility condition in the Brochure, Annexure P.1, the applicant must not have availed allotment of plot/house/flat under any reserved category in any scheme of Government agency anywhere in the country. It was also mentioned that those who got benefit of allotment of plot/house from a government agency or in cooperative society to whom land was allotted by any of the government agency in SAS Nagar Sub Division or Chandigarh or Panchkula under any scheme were also not eligible. On 18.2.1012, respondent No.3 issued a letter to the petitioner informing him that some discrepancies were found in the documents submitted by him. The petitioner was directed to submit residence certificate showing that he was resident of Punjab/Chandigarh for the last five years, an undertaking that there was no plot/house in his or his spouse's name in Tri-City and a certificate that he had not availed the benefit of plot/house/booth from the Deputy Commissioner in his category. According to the petitioner, the term "booth" was arbitrarily included in this letter so as to deny him his right for allotment of plot and to give the benefit to some one else. The petitioner submitted the required documents in the office of respondent No.4. He also filed representation dated 13.6.2012, Annexure P.8 in the office of GMADA. Having received no response, he filed CWP No.15345 of 2012 in this Court for a direction to the respondents to allot him plot of 100 square yards. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.1.2013 with a direction to respondent No.1 to treat the writ petition as representation and action be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Vide order dated 30.7.2013, Annexure P.10, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.1. Hence the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were not right in declining the claim of the petitioner while cancelling the plot allotted to him vide order dated 30.7.2013, Annexure P.10. It was urged that in the policy, there was no reference to allotment of any commercial property and, therefore, it was not applicable in the present case. The sale of commercial booth which was allotted to the petitioner under the Riot/Terrorist victims category would not disentitle him to allotment of a 100 square yards plot under Eco City scheme being covered under Riot/Terrorist victims category.