SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Surjit Kaur has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of condition of price of the plot as quoted in the allotment letter dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-4). A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the Improvement Trust (respondent No.2) to issue fresh allotment letter by quoting price as prevalent during the year 2010.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present writ petition are that the petitioner is owner in possession of land measuring 500 square yards comprised in Khasra No.1155/62, 1156/63 Khata No.229/316 as per jamabandi for the year 1965-66, Village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. She purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 27.01.1970 from one Col. Labh Singh. Vide notification dated 18.06.1973 issued by the Improvement Trust under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called as 'the Act 1922'), the land of the petitioner was acquired. As per provisions of the Act 1922 and Rules framed thereunder, she became eligible and entitled for allotment of a plot being displaced person. On the basis of application submitted by the petitioner, a plot was allotted to her and thereafter, she deposited the earnest money. Accordingly she became entitled for plot but still it was not given. She filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called as 'the Consumer Forum'), which was allowed and a direction was issued for allotment of plot measuring 300 square yards in Model Town Extension Part-II, Scheme. Compensation for harassment was also granted to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- along with cost of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the same. The petitioner applied for allotment of plot at the rate prevailing on the date of filing of the complaint or the date of decision passed in her favour. Vide letter dated 16.08.2017, the petitioner was informed to deposit the amount as per prevailing rate during the year 2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not the fault of the petitioner and delay had occurred because of fault of the respondent-authorities. As per direction issued by the Consumer Forum, the petitioner was to be allotted plot within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of order dated 07.09.2010. Learned counsel has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Brij Mohan and others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another, 2011 2 SCC 29. In said case, the application was made in the year 1990 and the High Court was approached in the year 1992. As per directions issued by the High Court, the application was to be considered within a fixed period. It was also observed that there was a delay in allotment which was on the part of respondents-authorities. The claim of the petitioner was accepted and respondents-authorities were directed to allot the plot as per letter of allotment as the delay was on their part.