CAPT RAJPAL SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR, URBAN ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted on behalf of the State in the written statement that according to the policy of the Government preference in the matter of allotment was to be given to the applicants who were ready to pay the price of the plot in lump sum. The petitioner was informed about this policy vide letter dated 17.3.1975. The petitioner requested the respondents for the transfer of the plot in the name of her son Capt. R.P. Singh. Capt. R.P. Singh made the requisite payment in November, 1980. The sole contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the State is that in November, 1980 the policy of Government had changed and petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the allotment of plot on preference basis because he has not made the lump sum payment. The petitioner's application was pending in the department. The applicant acquired a vested right to get her claim considered and examined in accordance with the policy which was in existence on the date of the application, when her application was pending. On the basis of the then existing policy the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a plot on preferential basis. The change in policy occurred in November, 1980. No executive order can be passed with retrospective effect altering the rights of the persons whose names are registered for the allotment of plots. The executive orders can take effect with prospective effect. In view of this, petitioner was entitled to the allotment of plot according to the policy which was in existence prior to November, 1980. According to that petitioner was entitled to allotment of plot on preferential basis subject to payment made in lump sum. In this view of the matter, the action of the Government in not considering the case of the petitioner with retrospective effect is arbitrary, capricious, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a serving captain in the Army, the Government should have considered his case sympathetically. His case will be governed by the old policy. The State counsel relied upon the State Policy that he would be allotted plot according to the changed policy. It is difficult to accept this plea of the State Government, it is accepted principle of law that the Government cannot change its policy with retrospective effect. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed, the impugned orders Annexure P-7 is quashed and the respondents are directed to allot a plot to the petitioner measuring 500 square yards according to the criteria existing prior to 1980. If there is any balance payment due from the petitioner, he would be bound to pay the same along with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date it was due. It is clarified that the price of the plot will be charged which was prevailing at the time the policy of the Government giving preferential rights to the petitioner for allotment of plot as he was prepared to make the payment in lump sum, comes into force.

(2.) This petition is allowed as indicated above with no orders as to costs. This order be not treated as precedent. The plot should be allotted to the petitioner within one month from today.