MANMOHAN SINGH KHANNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Manmohan Singh Khanna has filed the present civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, and the Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, respondent No. 2 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus praying that both the respondents be directed to deliver the physical possession of plot No. B-89 measuring 250 sq. yards, which was allotted to him vide resolution No. 307 dated 29. 11. 1979 passed by respondent No. 2 in the Ajnala Road Area Development Scheme, Amritsar.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that in the year 1979 while he was working as Assistant Professor in the Government Medical College, Amritsar, he became eligible under the Improvement Trust Rules of 1975 to apply for a residential plot of 250 sq. yds. in one of the approved or sanctioned schemes and he moved an application to the Trust for the allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yds. out of the quota reserved for the Govt. employees. In a meeting of the trust held on 29. 11. 1979, resolution No. 307 was passed and the trust decided to allot plots to 47 applicants including the petitioner on reserved price. The petitioner was allotted a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yds. bearing No. B-89 in Ajnala Road Area Development Scheme, at the reserved price of Rs. 78/- per sq. yd. , and the petitioner was further directed to deposit the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 2000/ -. These directions were complied on 2. 11. 1979. The allotment case of the various applicants including the petitioner was sent to the Govt. for approval. Before the approval could be granted new Govt. came into power and it decided to cancel all the allotments made by the previous Govt. irrespective of the merits of the case. In the month of September, 1980 the Govt, informed all the Administrator of the Improvement Trust that all the recommendations made by the former Chairman of the Improvement Trust, for the allotment of the plots to various persons out of the Govt quota had been considered and rejected by the New Govt. Against this blanket order of the Goyt. the petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 1504 of 1983 and challenged the blanket order of the State Government and the subsequent order of the Trust whereby the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. That petition was disposed of along with other writ petitions. However, main order was passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1500 of 1983. The decisions given in the writ petitions were based on the decision given in the Civil Writ Petition No. 611 of 1982 decided on 24. 5. 1983. Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment dated 24. 5. 1983 which was dismissed. Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner along with others made a representation to the Chairman, Improvement Trust stating therein that they filed the Civil Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed and it was ordered that he be allotted residential plot measuring 250 sq. yds. as decided vide resolution No. 307 dated 29. 11. 1979 and plot No. B-89 be allotted. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was not given physical possession of plot No. B-89 in spite of the representation. Now the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that after quashing the orders of the State Govt. as well as of the Improvement Trust plot No. B-89 should be allotted to him as the Amritsar Improvement Trust is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel particularly when the petitioner had already deposited earnest money an amount of Rs. 2000/- and the plot is still standing in the name of the petitioner in the record of the trust. The matter had already been adjudicated in civil writ petition No. 1504 of 1993 finally. With the above averments, the petitioner Manmohan Singh has prayed the allowing of the writ petition as prayed for.

(3.) I have heard Shri H. S. Giani, Advocate, and Shri Gurinder Singh, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner and Shri P. S. Chhina, DAG (Punjab), for the respondent No. 1 and Shri T. S. Gujral, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.