GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P16). In order to understand and appreciate the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the operative part of the aforesaid order is being extracted hereunder: --

(2.) We find no infirmity in the aforesaid determination. So as to become eligible, an applicant must deposit earnest money in terms of the reserved price fixed for the plot for which he is an applicant. He cannot require the authorities to consider his application on the basis of the earnest money deposited by him for some other plot. It is, therefore, that we find no merit in the claim of the petitioner requiring the respondents to accept the earnest money deposited by him on an earlier occasion in respect of a different plot.

(3.) In order to be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Miss Swarna Khanna v. Delhi Development Authority, 2001 3 RCR(Civ) 19, wherein it was held, that on account of delay in making allotment, the allottees cannot be subjected to additional charges on account of escalation of prices in the meantime. In our view, the instant judgement would be applicable to a case wherein the application is for the same plot and the prices had risen in the interregnum on account of delay in allotment. That is not the case herein. So far as the present controversy is concerned, the application of the petitioner is in respect of a plot different from the one for which he had deposited the earnest money. To be considered for the present plot, the applicant will obviously have to pay the price prevalent at the time when the application has been filed, and not on the basis of the price prevalent when he had deposited the earnest money for some other plot.