CHARANJIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the corrigendum dated 29.12.2015, Annexure P.6 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to allot a plot measuring 401-500 square yards to him under the relevant category.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. On 5.12.2015, a scheme was opened by respondent No.2-The Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) inviting applications for allotment of 123 free hold residential plots at Sector 38 (72 plots) and Dugri Phase II and III, Bye pass (total 51 plots), Ludhiana. As per the brochure, Annexure P.1, there was reservation of 4% of the plots for serving and retired Defence Personnel and Paramilitary Forces (including war widows of these categories) in defence category under Code 'C'. Thus, out of total 51 plots for Dugri Phase II and III, Bye pass Ludhiana, two plots measuring 401-500 square yards were kept reserved for defence personnel. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He retired from Eleven Guard regiment of Indian Army. He was enrolled on 20.1.1969 and discharged on 1.2.1984. The petitioner applied for 401-500 square yards category plot vide application No.2401 on 4.1.2016 by paying ' 10 lacs to GLADA through Punjab National Bank, Model Town Branch, Ludhiana for which an interest of ' 48,971/- was paid by him. The draw of lots was to be held on 15.3.2016 but the same was held on 15.2.2016 i.e. one month in advance. The petitioner was shown at No.1 in the waiting list and only one plot had been allotted to one Shri Sahib Singh son of Shri Sarain Singh under defence personnel category. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 9.3.2016 to the respondents alongwith others wherein it was mentioned that the GLADA illegally and unlawfully reduced the reservation of plots from 2 to 1 and there was no such information on the website of GLADA. It was thus prayed by the petitioner that a plot in the aforesaid category be allotted to him. In response to the legal notice, a letter dated 31.3.2016 was received by the counsel for the petitioner in which it had been mentioned that in the printed brochure under reserved category C, number of plots were wrongly printed 2 instead of one and for that corrigendum was published in different newspapers on 29.12.2015. The petitioner asserts that the amount deposited by him is still lying with GLADA. According to the petitioner, as per brochure, 4% plots were reserved for defence personnel category. No plot for defence category was reserved under 501-650 square yards (12 plots), 301- 400 square yards (5 plots) and 201-300 square yards (6 plots). If separately calculated, 4% of 12 will be less than one, similarly for five numbers of plots also, 4% will be less than one and 4% of 6 numbers of plots is also less than one. Total number of plots for Dugri Phase II and III are 51 and 4% of 51 comes to more than 2. Thus, in any case, as per own reservation mentioned by GLADA, two plots were required to be given to defence category under 401- 500 square yards size of plots. It was not a case of misprinting in the brochure but it was a case where for the reasons best known to respondents No.2 and 3, number of plots were reduced from 2 to 1. The petitioner asserts that for Sector 38 Samrala road, in the same brochure, 4% plots had been reserved for the same defence category and out of 52 plots of 250 square yards, 2 plots had been reserved for this very category and similarly out of 20 plots of 100 square yards, one plot had been reserved for this category. Even 4% of the total 72 plots comes to 2.88 and round figure is 3. Thus, proper reservation had been given to defence category in Sector 38 by GLADA. Thus, how and in what manner the GLADA reduced plots from 2 to 1 for Dugri Phase II and III under 401-500 square yards for defence personnel category could only be explained by them. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by Estate Officer, GLADA, Ludhiana wherein it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a 401-500 square yards plot out of serving and retired defence personnel and paramilitary forces. 28 plots of the said size were available for allotment for defence category and the reservation was 4%. Therefore, 1.12 plots came to the share of defence category. As there was a mistake/misprinting in the brochure, therefore, the corrigendum was rightly issued on 29.12.2015 by the GLADA before the last date for submission of applications that the number of plots in this category be read as one instead of two. GLADA had given the reservation of plots size wise. Since the petitioner was not successful in the draw of lots and he was in the waiting list, he could not be allotted any plot for the size of 401-500 square yards being in the waiting list as the successful candidate had already been allotted the plot. Further, according to the respondents, now no plot of the size in respect of the petitioner is available with GLADA for allotment. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.