DEVINDER CHEEMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for adjudication in this case is whether the price fixation of the land allotted to the petitioner is ultra vires to the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The facts relevant and germane to the decision of above mentioned question are that Surinder Singh Bajaj son of Prem Singh, resident ofHouse No. 1205, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh was allotted residential plot No. 80/IX measuring 500 square yards, Sector 70, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali. In the letter of allotment, Annexure P. 1 dated 5-3-1990 issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, it was made clear to the allottee that the rate of the land being allotted to him has not been finally approved and, therefore, the allotment is being made on the provisional price of Rs. 1,55,000/-. It was also made clear that the tentative price of the plot would be intimated after its approval by the government. Later on, the government approved the tentative price of the plot of the size of 500 square yards as Rs. 5,20,000/-. Accordingly, a letter Annexure P. 2 was sent to Shri Surinder Singh requiring him to pay the balance price amounting to Rs. 3,65,000/- but he did not deposit the tentative price because he appears to have transferred the plot to one Smt. Iqbal Kaur wife of Shri Iqbal Singh, resident of House No. 154, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh by executing general power of attorney in her favour who, in turn, appears to have further transferred the property to the present petitioner by executing a sub power of attorney. This inference has been drawn by us from the material available on record which includes the representation dated 29-8-1995 made by the petitioner to the Estate Officer for delivery of possession of the plot and representation dated 2-1-1996 made by her claiming relief in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated 28-9-1992 in C. W. P. No. 13283 of 1991 (reported in AIR 1993 Punj and Har 54) D. S. Longia v. State of Punjab and others.

(3.) In the writ petition, the demand letter Annexure P. 2 sent to Surinder Singh Bajaj requiring him to pay Rs. 3,65,000/- as balance of the tentative price has been challenged on the ground that it is contrary to Rules 5 and 5-A read with Rule 2(aa) of the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). She has averred that the land owner has not been paid enhanced compensation on the basis of award made by the Reference Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore, the demand raised by the respondent No. 2 is liable to be declared as null and void.