NIRMAL YADAV,J - (1.) PETITIONER -Shashi Bala, a social worker, applied to the Chief Minister of Punjab for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards out of the discretionary quota of the Government of Punjab on 28.1.1987. Petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh. However, she wanted to settle at Ropar. After due verification, respondent No. 1 approved the allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, out of the discretionary quota. A direction was issued to respondent No. 2 (Improvement Trust, Ropar) to allot the plot as aforesaid, under Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'allotment rules') vide Memo dated 10.2.1987 (Annexure P-2). After receipt of letter, Annexure P-2, the petitioner did not hear anything from respondent No. 2 and, therefore, she submitted representation dated 21.9.1987 for expediting the allotment of the plot in her favour. Respondent No. 2 did not even acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid representation, however, allotted 3 plots to other persons vide order dated 30.11.1987, the details whereof are as under :- Name Plot No. 1. Ram Chander 338 2. Ms. Paramjit Kaur 634 3. Gian Singh 192 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 19.1.1988 to respondent No. 1. In pursuance thereof, respondent No. 1 called upon respondent No. 2 to submit report within a week vide order dated 25.1.1988 (Annexure P-4). However, nothing was heard by the petitioner in this respect. Later on, it transpired that one plot of similar specification was allotted by respondent No. 2 to Shri R.C. Ahuja and another plot to Shri Bhag Singh of Ropar under the resolution of the Board. Subsequently, allotment in favour of Bhag Singh was reported to be annulled. Petitioner requested the Director, Local Government, Punjab to intervene in the matter and get her allotted a plot, vide representation dated 25.4.1988 (Annexure P-5). The Director, Local Government did not respond to the aforesaid request of the petitioner. However, the petitioner received Memo No. RET/1658 dated 4.7.1988 from respondent No. 2 calling upon her to submit an affidavit in support of her income. The petitioner promptly complied with the requirement and submitted the requisite affidavit. Even thereafter, nothing was heard from respondent No. 2 with regard to allotment of plot. The grievance of the petitioner was published in the newspapers viz. The Tribune dated 7.11.1988 under the column 'Our Readers Complaints' and Indian Express dated 15.11.1988 under the column "Complaint Box". Respondent No. 2 sent a reply to the News Editor Indian Express, Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.12.1988 (Annexure P-9) stating that all the documents pertaining to allotment have already been submitted to respondent No. 1 for necessary action. As and when any reply is received, information will be sent. A similar reply was published in the Indian Express dated 10.1.1989 (Annexure P-10).
(2.) VIDE Memo dated 2.1.1989 (Annexure P-11), respondent No. 1 intimated to the petitioner that no plot is clearly available for allotment in the scheme. However, the petitioner's claim could be considered only when a plot becomes available. Petitioner requested the respondents time and again for allotment of plot in her favour as all the formalities stood complied with. It was further represented that a plot allotted in favour of Shri Bhag Singh, Ex. M.L.A., stood annulled and the same was available for allotment, therefore, it could be allotted to the petitioner. During various visits to the offices of both the respondents, petitioner was repeatedly assured by them that matter was being processed at the appropriate level and needful would be done very soon. It is pleaded that action of the respondents in not allotting plot to the petitioner, despite specific orders of allotment issued by respondent No. 1, and making allotments in favour of many other persons under the scheme, is discriminatory and arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot measuring 500 square yards in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Development Scheme, Ropar. In the written-statement filed by respondent No. 1 it has been admitted that petitioner applied for allotment of a plot measuring 500 square yards out of Government Discretionary quota at Ropar in Giani Zail Singh Nagar Development Scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ropar (respondent No. 2). It is also admitted that respondent No. 1 had approved allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 square yards out of discretionary quota to the petitioner in the above-mentioned scheme and a direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to allot her a plot under Rule 4 of the allotment rules on usual terms and conditions and subject to furnishing of affidavit and Social Welfare Certificate as provided in the rules. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2 had made recommendation to respondent No. 1 to allot one plot measuring 500 square yards to Shri Bhag Singh out of MLA/MP quota, but the recommendation was rejected by the Government vide letter dated 3.8.1989. It is further submitted that as per the position available with respondent No. 1, no plot measuring 500 square yards was available in the abovementioned scheme at the relevant time nor any plot was available at the time of filing written-statement, in the aforementioned scheme.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2-Improvement Trust, Rup Nagar, in its reply submitted that petitioner did not submit the affidavit as required under the rules to show that she did not own any residential plot/house anywhere in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate or in any scheme of the Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the State of Haryana. It is admitted that respondent No. 2 had received order-Annexure P-2 to allot a plot measuring 500 square yards out of the Government discretionary quota to the petitioner in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar under Rule 4 of the allotment rules subject to furnishing of affidavit as provided under the rules. Petitioner did not submit the Social Worker Certificate as required by letter, Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2, however, admitted that one plot measuring 500 square yards was allotted to Shri Ram Chander Ahuja, who had duly complied with the conditions and formalities relating to allotment of plot. Paramjit Kaur and Gian Singh were also allotted plots measuring 150 square yards and 300 square yards, respectively, in the Development Scheme of Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Respondent No. 2 conveyed vide letter dated 29.3.1988 (Annexure R-1), to the petitioner that she should produce a Social Worker Certificate so that further action could be taken with regard to allotment of plot to her, but she did not furnish the necessary documents including the affidavit to the effect that she did not own any residential plot/house anywhere in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate or in any scheme of the Improvement Trust in Punjab or Panchkula in the State of Haryana.;