MANGAL DASS ARORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of three civil writ petitions Nos. 2617 of 1988 (Mangal Dass Arora v. The State of Punjab and Anr.) 16841 of 1992 (Hans Raj Mudh v. State of Punjab and Anr.) 13636 of 1994 (Sqn. Ldr. D. H. Sandhu v. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Ors. ).

(2.) FIRST of all I would like to take the pleadings of C. W. P. No. 2617 of 1988 in which Shri Mangal Dass Arora has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari/directions quashing the orders dated 9. 6. 1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by the State Government rejecting the allotment of plots made by the Amritsar Improvement Trust (respondent No. 2) by draw of lots held on 21. 10. 1986 in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (for short 'the 1983 Rules' ). The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot to him the plot as per the draw of lots already held on 21. 10. 1986. It has been pleaded that Amritsar Improvement Trust invited applications for the allotment of residential plots at Ajnala Road Area Expansion Scheme. The petitioner made an application for allotment of a plot of 300 sq. yards out of the plots reserved for State Government employees under Rule 4 (1) of the 1983 Rules. According to clause (iv) of Rule 4 (1) of the 1983 Rules, eight percent of the plots are supposed to be reserved for the persons appointed to Public Services by the State Government, who are holding posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab and in case of their death while in service, their widows. The petitioner was working as Inspector in the Police Department at Amritsar at the time of the submission of the application and he being a State Government employee was entitled to be considered for allotment of plots reserved for such category of persons under Rule 4 (1) (iv) of the said Rules. Rule 8 provides that residential plots shall be allotted by the Trust by draw of lots and commercial plots by auction. Rule 10 provides that persons exceeding gross annual income of Rs. 25,000/- and not owning jointly or severally with the spouse a residential plot or house other than an ancestral house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or any Urban Estate or in any area covered by the Scheme framed under the Act or at Panchkula and who has not disposed of such plot or house, shall be eligible for allotment of residential plots measuring 300 square yards or more. The petitioner states that draw of lots for allotment of residential plots in Ajnala Road Area Expansion Scheme was held by the Trust on 21. 10. 1986 and plot No. E-117 measuring 300 sq. yards drew in his favour. The Trust informed the petitioner vide letter dated 12. 12. 1986 (PI) that the petitioner should furnish an affidavit about his not owning any other plot, house, his income and of his being a State Government employee, to enable the Trust to issue regular allotment letter. The petitioner submitted the necessary affidavit along with letter dated 22. 12. 1986. The affidavits are Annexure P2 and P3. The Trust referred to the State Government the draw held on 21. 10. 1986 for obtaining their sanction but the State Government vide letter dated 9. 6. 1987 rejected the allotment made by draw of lots without giving any reasons or opportunity of hearing either to the Trust or to the allottees (Annexure P4 ). The Trust thereafter vide letter dated 4. 12. 1987 (P5) cancelled the allotment of Plot No. E-117 in the Scheme to the petitioner in view of the rejection letter dated 9. 6. 1987 (P4 ). The petitioner alleges that the order dated 9. 6. 1987 (P4), rejecting the allotment of the plots by the Trust in accordance with the provisions of the 1983 Rules and the order dated 4. 12. 1987 (P5) issued by the Trust, cancelling the allotment of the plot to the petitioner, are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, inoperative, unjust, unfair, and ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and violative of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed because the State Government has no power under the 1983 Rules to reject the allotment of plots made by the Trust in accordance with the provisions of the rules. The State Government nowhere figures in the 1983 Rules and no approval of the State Government was required for the allotment of the plot. The action on the part of the Slate Government is clearly without any authority and law. The State Government has not given any reasons for rejecting the allotment of the plots made by the Trust by draw of lots. The letter (Annexure P4) is not a speaking order. After the State Government has framed the rules for the guidance of the Trust, for allotment of plots, it cannot work as a supervisory body for the working of the Trust. The State Government could examine the matter before the allotment of the plots by the Trust, but it could not disapprove or decline to grant approval for any reason. The State Government has passed a blanket order rejecting the allotment of the plots to all the persons who were allotted plots in the draw of lots held on 21. 10. 1986. The State Government should have examined the case of each of the allottees individually. With the above averments the present -petitioner has made the prayer referred to above. 2. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The stand of the State Government is contained in para No. 8 of the written statement wherein it has been pleaded that the Government vide memo dated 28. 11. 1984 addressed to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Pathankot, and copy to all the Chairman of the Trusts in the State of Punjab issued clarification that the Trust can allot reserved plots to the eligible persons as mentioned in Rule 4 (1) of the 1983 Rules with the prior approval of the State Government. Before making allotment of plots to the reserved categories, including the category of the petitioner, the Government was requested to accord sanction, but the proposal was considered and rejected. Thereafter the Trust made allotment by draw of lots, which was held on 21. 10. 1986, to the persons falling in reserved categories and further request was made to the Government to grant ex post facto sanction, but the Government vide memo, dated 9. 6. 1987 rejected the allotment made by draw of lots held on 21. 10. 1986 and accordingly intimation was sent to the petitioner vide Annexure P5. The said action on the part of the Government is legal and constitutional. The stand of respondent No. 2 (the Improvement Trust) is on the lines of the State Government (respondent No. 1) It has also been pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the State Government has right to reject any allotment made by the Trust as laid down in the Memo dated 28. 11. 1984.

(3.) IN C. W. P. No. 16841 of 1992 Hans Raj Mudh petitioner has pleaded that respondent No. 2, i. e. , the Trust, developed a scheme known as Ajnala Road Area Expansion scheme, concerning residential plots, which were to be allotted by the Trust by draw of lots as per the provisions of the 1983 Rules, and the Trust advertised in the newspapers calling upon the general public to submit applications to the Trust for allotment of plots to various categories as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement. The petitioner is a public servant working as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board. He applied for allotment of a plot and also deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/- with the Improvement Trust on 20. 8. 1985 vide receipt No. 43410. The draw of lots was held on 21. 10. 1986 and the petitioner was lucky enough to get a plot in his favour in the draw. The number of the plot was D-156 and it measured 200 square yards. An intimation dated 9. 12. 1986 with regard thereto was sent by the Trust to the petitioner.