- (1.) The order dated 6-11-1996 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 is under challenge. The appellant Corporation published an advertisement for allotment of industrial plots in Phase IX, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Respondent 1 applied for the allotment of an industrial plot pursuant to the said advertisement. He was allotted Industrial Plot No. P-195 measuring 478 sq yd on 25-9-1987. Pursuant to the said allotment, he deposited 40% of the tentative price fixed for the plot. Some persons who were applicants for allotment of plots, could not succeed, in other words, they were not allotted plots. They filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the process of allotment of plots made to the allottees. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by the order dated 2-6-1989, cancelled the allotment of plots made pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement and directed that fresh advertisement be made for allotment of plots. Thirty-seven writ petitions were filed by the persons whose allotments were cancelled. Those writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court and disposed of by order dated 13-1-1994 in the following terms: "For the reasons stated above, we allow these writ petitions and hold that the judgment dated 2-6-1989 rendered in CWP No. 6694 of 1987 and the connected writ petitions whereby the allotment of industrial plots made in favour of the persons like the petitioners was cancelled, will be ineffective so far as the rights of the petitioners are concerned. The Corporation is directed to make allotment of industrial plots to the petitioners as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the letters of allotment. However, it is made clear that the Corporation will be entitled to claim additional price of the plots on account of enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the very fair stand taken by the counsel for the Corporation, we make no order as to costs."
(2.) As can be seen from the order extracted above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cancelling the allotment was rendered ineffective so far as the rights of the writ petitioners were concerned. It may be made clear here itself that Respondent 1 was not one of those 37 writ petitioners. Pursuant to the order made by the learned Single Judge, the appellants addressed a letter to Respondent 1, mentioning the subject as allotment of Industrial Plot No. P-195 and stating that a sum of Rs 17,032 was returned by a bank draft dated 21-10-1987. Respondent 1 received the bank draft and encashed the same. Respondent 1 neither returned the bank draft nor protested for the refund and also did not make any representation in that regard. As directed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6698 of 1987, a fresh advertisement was published by the appellants on 9-5-1990. Respondent 1 did not apply for allotment of any industrial plot pursuant to the said advertisement as well. Then also, he did not challenge the cancellation of allotment of the plot made to him. Respondent 1 claimed that he made the representation on 23-1-1994 i.e. after the judgment was pronounced by the Division Bench on 13-1-1994 in the writ petitions filed by 37 other petitioners. Thereafter, Respondent 1 filed writ petition on 10-3-1996 seeking relief similar to the relief granted to 37 writ petitioners by the Division Bench. On behalf of the appellants, counter-affidavit was filed before the High Court. In para 2 of the said counter-affidavit pointing out the delay and laches on the part of Respondent 1, it is stated thus: "2. That the writ petition otherwise also suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The amount of Rs 17,032 sent by the petitioner vide bank draft dated 21-10-1987 was returned to him on 13-11-1987 vide communication, Annexure P-8. He got this credited in his account. He has clearly mentioned in para 17 of the writ petition that he has no receipt of letter, Annexure P-8 with which the said bank draft was returned to him, he had come to know that this was on the basis of judgment passed in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 vide which allotment made to the petitioner had been cancelled. A cause of action had arisen at that time to the petitioner to challenge this cancellation as others had done by filing writ petition in this Hon ble Court, as a result of which, the orders cancelling their allotments were made ineffective. The petitioner has not given explanation for the abnormal delay i.e. 7-9 years in filing this writ petition. The same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches."
(3.) Again in para 19 of the said counter-affidavit, the appellants pointed out as to how the case of Respondent 1 was not similar to the 37 writ petitioners, whose writ petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench on 13-1-1994.;