SUBEDAR ANOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's name for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square meters at S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali ).

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by him are that the petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, applied for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards in the Urban Estate of Amritsar in pursuance of the notice issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab on behalf of the Directorate of Housing Urban Development Punjab for allotment of plots to the officers and members of the Defence Services and B. S. F. /c. R. P. , C. R. P. F, I. T. B. P. , S. S. B. etc. After he had waited for 12 years, the petitioner was informed by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab that the Urban Estate has not been set up at Amritsar and, therefore, he may opt for transfer of the application to one of the existing Urban Estates, namely, S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali), Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Patiala and Bhatinda. After waiting for another 2 years, the petitioner was told by the Estate Officer, P. U. D. A. , Jalandhar that no plot is available in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar under the Defence Personnel Category. He, therefore, requested for transfer of the application to the Urban Estate at S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali ). The respondent No. 6 forwarded the petitioner's application to the General Manager (Allotment), P. U. D. A. , Chandigarh. The petitioner also made representations to the General Manager (Allotment), the Chief Administrator and the Chairman, P. U. D. A. , Chandigarh. However, what he got in the reply was the letter Annexure P-7 dated 28. 02. 1997 which was accompanied by a cheque of Rs. 2,000.00 representing the earnest money deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner made further representations to the respondents No. 3 to 6 but failed to persuade them to consider his case for allotment of plot reserved for Defence Personnel in the Urban Estate at Mohali. This is the reason why he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for directing the respondents No. 2 to 7 to allot a plot to him at S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali ). His plea is that the respondents have played fraud upon him by making a wrong representation that he can opt for Urban Estate at Jalandhar, even though they knew that no plot has been reserved for Defence Personnel in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar. His further contention is that the ex-servicemen, who had sought transfer from Amritsar to S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali) have already been allotted plots but in his case an altogether different attitude has been adopted by the respondents resulting in denial of his right to equality before law.

(3.) THE question whether or not the petitioner is entitled to seek allotment of plot reserved for Defence personnel has to be decided in the background of the admitted facts that the petitioner and other ex-servicemen, who had initially applied for allotment of plots at Amritsar in pursuance of the notice Annexure P-1 issued in the year 1977, were given option in the year 1994 for transfer of their applications to any of the 5 Urban Estates, namely, S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali), Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Patiala and Bhatinda because the Punjab Housing Development Board (predecessor of the respondents No. 2 to 7) did not set up Urban Estate at Amritsar. Although, the availability of the plot for Defence Personnel in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar was implicit in the action of the Board to give option to the applicants to apply for any of the 5 Urban Estates including Jalandhar, the fact of the matter is that the plots reserved for Defence Personnel were not available in that urban Estate. The petitioner was informed about the true factual position, namely, the non-availability of plot meant for Defence Personnel in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar after 2 years of his exercising the option in pursuance of notice Annexure-P2. In view of this, we hold that the Punjab Housing Development Board, the respondent No. 2 and the officers concerned made false representations to the petitioner and other Defence Personnel which resulted in depriving them of an opportunity to seek allotment of plots reserved for them. For a period of 17 years, the petitioner was made to believe-that he will be considered for allotment of plot in the Urban Estate at Amritsar, though no such Estate was ultimately created at Amritsar. From 1994 to 1996, the Board and other respondents kept the petitioner waiting for allotment of plot by giving a false hope to him that his application will be considered for allotment of plot in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar. The Board gave option to the petitioner to seek transfer of his application to the Urban Estate at Jalandhar, even though it must have been known to the officers concerned that no plot has been reserved for Defence Personnel in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar. As a logical corollary to the above mentioned conclusion we hold that the petitioner has been discriminated vis-a-vis other applicants who had initially applied for allotment of plot in the Urban Estate at Amritsar and who opted for in the Urban Estate at S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali) in pursuance of the notice Annexure P-2. If the petitioner was told that in the Urban Estate at Jalandhar, plots have not been reserved for Defence Personnel, he may have opted for such Urban Estate where the plots were available for persons like him. By not disclosing the correct facts to the petitioners, the respondents created a situation in which the petitioner has been deprived of his right to be considered for allotment of plot in the quota of Defence Personnel. Thus, the respondents are guilty of violating the petitioner's right of equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by treating equals unequally.