SH GULWANT SINGH PERHAR Vs. KAMAL KANTA ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuldip Parhar Memorial Charitable Hospital Society as well as State of Punjab have filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 and 256 of 1986 respectively against the judgment dated 9.12.1985 passed by D.V. Sehgal, J (as he then was) ordering for cancellation of sale deed executed by the Government in favour of the Charitable Hospital. Since both these appeals are directed against the same judgment, these are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Petitioners sought issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing orders Annexure P-21 and P.22. Before examining the various contentions raised by the petitioners as well as defence set up by the contesting respondents and the judgment given by the learned Single Judge, it would be appropriate to give in brief the background of the matter.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged this action of the government on a number of grounds which can be summarised (i) the site in question having been reserved for park/tubewell could not be sold in view of the amended provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act; (ii) that the open site had been transferred to Municipal Committee, Jalandhar, and as the same was earmarked for public purpose of setting up of tubewell/public park, so the sale of the same was impermissible in law; (iii) that only such open sites would be sold by the government which were earmarked for specified uses i.e. open sites for religious places; educational institutions clubs or shops etc. Since the disputed space was meant for a public park, same could not be sold much less without the prior approval of the Senior Town Planner; (iv) That the action of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (v) That the applications of the other applicants including the petitioners - owners of the house adjoining the open space in dispute have not yet been decided by the government and so the transfer in favour of Charitable Hospital being discreminatory is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution; (vi) That plot could not be alloted to the said Charitable Hospital at concessional rate; (vii) That even as per original official plan, site is meant for benefit of purchasers of the buildings surrounding the same; and (viii) Even if the Government had a right to dispose of the open space, transferee cannot be permitted to change the nature of the same i.e. transferee has to keep the space open.