Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot her a plot measuring 100 sq. yds. at Mohali. She has also prayed that Annexure P9 and P11, vide which the amount deposited by her was refunded, be quashed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that land measuring 6 Bighas 5 Biswas belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondents on August 1, 1970 for the public purpose, namely, for setting up of an Urban Estate in SAS Nagar (Mohali). On July 9, 1980 the Punjab Government framed a policy for allotment of plots to the oustees in lieu of the land acquired. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot measuring 200 sq. yds. and deposited Rs. 1200/ - to make up the 10% amount required as earnest money. Vide letter dated April 30, 1981 the petitioner was asked to deposit more amount to make up 25% of the price of the plot and this amount amounting to Rs. 3050/ - was deposited by the petitioner on May 29, 1981. The Estate Officer, Urban Development, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated September 6, 1982 informed the petitioner that her application for the allotment of 100 sq. yds., plot has been kept pending. Again on July 16, 1991 the Estate Officer informed the petitioner that her application has been entered at R.No. 10025 and the same would be considered in accordance with the new policy of the Government. It may be relevant to mention here that the respondents revised the policy qua the allotment of plots to the oustees in 1983.
(3.) A draw of lots was held on August 1, 1995 and the application of the petitioner was not included in that draw. However, applications of various other persons were considered and they were allotted plots. After the draw of lots was held, on April 8, 1999 the amount of 25% which had been deposited by the petitioner was refunded. The reason given for refunding aforesaid amount was that the petitioner had not deposited the 10% earnest money as per the rates. This amount was returned by the petitioner and she again requested the authorities to allot her a plot as she was an oustee. However, respondent No. 3 again returned the amount on August 2, 2000 vide Annexure P11 informing the petitioner that her case has already been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although 25% amount had already been deposited by the petitioner as far back as on 29.5.1981, yet the respondents have wrongly not considered the claim for allotment of the plot and similarly situated persons have been allotted the plots in the draw held on August 1, 1995. The petitioner has given the names of 10 similarly situated persons in paragraph 11 of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the petitioner's land had been acquired. She was an oustee. Therefore, she was entitled to the allotment of a plot in terms of the policy of the State Government.;