INDERPAL KAUR Vs. GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Inderpal Kaur has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.2-Estate Officer, GMADA, whereby representation dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-13) submitted by the petitioner, in pursuance of order dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-14) passed by this Court in CWP No.15045 of 2017, has been decided and the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot measuring 500 square yards on the basis of transfer letter/Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "LOI"?) dated 06.07.1994 (Annexure P-2), has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot plot measuring 500 square yards in SAS Nagar in view of the aforesaid transfer letter/LOI.

(2.) A plot measuring 10 Marla situated in Phase VII (Sector 61), SAS Nagar was allotted to one Jeevan Dass vide allotment letter dated 07.08.1995, issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Mohali. Thereafter, the conveyance deed of the plot was executed in favour of the allottee on 15.07.1980. After death of original allottee Jeevan Dass on 19.10.1998, his legal heirs applied for transfer of the plot on the basis of registered Will dated 02.09.1997 executed by him. A public notice was also published in Daily News paper 'Indian Express' on 17.07.2010 for inviting objections to the order regarding transfer of the plot in the names of Joginderpal, Ashok Kumar sons of Jeevan Dass, Sonal Kumar, Sunita Rani, Master Rupesh Kumar (minor) and Biwesh Kumar.

(3.) .As per case of the petitioner, there was an agreement to sell executed between him and Jeevan Dass, the original allottee, on 24.06.1994. Petitioner paid the consideration amount and made request to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab for transfer of the plot in her favour. Said plot was transferred vide letter dated 06.07.1994 and LOI in favour of the petitioner was also issued. The agreement to sell was executed for a plot of 500 square yards but LOI was issued for residential plot measuring 200 square yards only. Petitioner made a request with the respondents that she purchased plot of 500 square yards, whereas she was allotted plot of 200 square yards. In spite of making request, no action was taken. An FIR No.97 dated 05.10.1994 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station, Mohali against 25 persons including the officials of the Urban Estate. There were allegations against said persons that they, in connivance with each other, prepared a fictitious document under the name of some persons who were dead and some were not traceable. The allegations were also there that signatures of Jeevan Dass were forged and plot was transferred in the name of the petitioner, after taking amount of Rs.1,72,000/-. Signatures of Jeevan Das were forged and fictitious affidavits were prepared for transfer of the plot in the name of the petitioner. The accused officials prepared a duplicate file of the original for selling the plot. Case of the petitioner was kept pending because of pendency of the FIR. Subsequently, the accused in said FIR were acquitted of the charges. Petitioner made various representations but nothing was done. Ultimately, she filed complaint dated 03.05.2011 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali, against respondent No.2-Estate Officer. Said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2011 on the ground that the petitioner was a prospective investor and not a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint was not maintainable. Thereafter, on dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner again approached the respondent-authorities but nothing was done. She sought information under RTI Act by moving an application but it was informed that the file of the case was with the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab. Subsequently, it was found that the file was not with the Vigilance Bureau. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 15045 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2017 with the direction to the respondent to decide representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2017. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.08.2018, which has been challenged before this Court.