- (1.) The instant petition filed in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution has brought to the forefront the issue concerning allotment of plots at Pathankot to dalit families in the year 1979 and the legality of their subsequent sale in the year 2004. The prayer made in the petition is that direction be issued in respect of such plots restraining the vendee-respondent No. 3 from raising construction of building on Plot Nos. 50, 59, 60 and 61, situated at Patel Chowk, Pathankot, by converting such plots into a shopping complex, alleging that the plots were given free of cost by the Improvement Trust, Pathankot-respondent No. 2 to the dalit families (weaker section of the people). Brief facts of the case are that on 13.3.1979 the respondent Improvement Trust framed a rehabilitation scheme for allotment of plots for dalit parivars, who were living in Jhuggis and kacha houses at Pathankot. The respondent Trust recommended to the Government that such dalit families be given plots measuring 2 marlas free of cost so that they could construct pakka houses and live a respectable life. The proposal made by the Trust was approved on 11.6.1979 and the Government also released a sum of ' 4,2,400/-as the cost of the land. Accordingly, plots measuring 2 marlas were allotted to the dalit families by the respondent Trust.
(2.) The petitioners under some mistaken belief stated that there was a blanket ban on the sale of such plots/houses. Accordingly, they have alleged that respondent No. 3, who is a Municipal Councilor, purchased four vacant plots measuring 2 marlas each, from their allottees, vide transfer deeds executed on 18.8.2004 and 25.8.2004, namely, Plot Nos. 50, 59, 60 and 61, situated at Patel Chowk, Pathankot. On 2.11.2004, a complaint was made to the District Town Planner, Gurdaspur, alleging that in the residential area, commercial construction was being raised by respondent No. 3 after purchasing the plots in illegal manner and a request for holding an inquiry was made. The District Town Planner-respondent No. 4 visited the spot and submitted his report concluding that the plots which were allotted to dalit families free of cost in the year 1979 have been purchased by respondent No. 3 in a fraudulent manner and the transfer deeds have been registered in his name by virtue of withholding actual documents and vital information. The report further stated that the construction had been raised by clubbing four plots, which was commercial in nature. It has also been pointed out that in case the dalit families wanted to indulge in illegality of sale of plots then the plots in question should have been resumed and it should have been re-allotted to other deserving dalit families for rehabilitation (P-1).
(3.) In response to notice of motion, a joint written statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In para 3 of the written statement it is conceded that in the letter of allotment a blanket condition, restraining the allottee from alienating the plot to anyone by way of sale, gift etc., has been incorporated. It has also been stated in para 1 that a Sub Committee headed by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust was constituted, vide Resolution No. 8/86, dated 30.11.2004 (R-2/1), which submitted its report on 24.1.2005. The report was placed before the Trust and it was decided to keep the matter pending vide resolution No. 13/100, dated 27.1.2005. On 4.3.2005, another resolution No. 111 was passed and it was decided to send the case to the District Town Planner, Gurdaspur, for technical opinion (R-2/2 and R-2/3). As the construction raised was commercial in nature whereas the area fell under the development scheme meant for residential purpose, the respondent Trust issued a notice dated 25.10.2004, under Section 195-A of the Punjab Municipal act, 1911 read with Section 49 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity, 'the Act'), to respondent No. 3 asking him to stop construction failing which action was to be taken (R-2/4). Similar notices were also issued to the original allottees of the plots. On 29.10.2004, the respondent Trust issued another notice to Shri Anil Vij, father of respondent No. 3, requiring to demolish the construction raised by him in violation of the sanctioned plan (R-2/5).;