- (1.) The Petitioner is a seeker of a residential plot in an urban estate at Ludhiana, in the process of being established by the respondents, has all along had a wild goose chase. The Department of Urban Estate, Punjab, is constituted under the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short the Act). On 5.7.1981, the Estate Officer, respondent No. 3, got published as advertisement (Annexure P-1/A) in the newspaper inviting applications for allotment of residential plots of different sizes i.e., 200, 150, 125, and 100 square yards on free-hold basis in the Urban Estate on Dugri Road, Phase-II, Samrala Road, Sectors 38-39 at Ludhiana. The petitioner fulfilled the qualifications and conditions laid down in the advertisement for allotment of a residential plot measuring 125 square yards. He consequently submitted an application Annexure P-2 on 28.7.1981 for allotment of a plot of that size and also deposited earnest money amounting to Rs. 1062.50 p. The application was accepted by respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1012 in the list of the applicants for plots. No subsequent action was, however, taken by the respondents to allot the plot to him. On 19.10.1982 respondent No. 3 issued a public notices (Annexure P-4) which was published in the "Daily Tribune" whereby it was intimated that the draw of lots in respect of plots measuring 150 and 200 square yards plots in the Urban Estate, Dugri Road and 100 and 125 square yards plots in the Urban Estate of Samrala Road, would be held shortly. The list of the applicants had been displayed on the notice board in the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner checked the list and found the against his name there was a remark "affidavit required". He collected the proforma from the office and submitted his affidavit Annexure P-5 along with a covering letter Annexure P-6. But again there was no subsequent action. On 10.8.1983 another notice P-7 was published in the "Daily Tribune" to the effect that the policy of the State Government regarding allotment of plots had been revised. In the new policy the plots of different sizes had been placed in three different groups, Under Group-1 there would be plots of 100, 150 and 200 square yards and these would be sold by allotment through draw of lots and that sale of plots by auction had been discontinued. Since under the revised Policy, plot measuring 125 square yards was not available, the petitioner gave his option for a residential plot measuring 100 square yards, vide application Annexure P-8, which was duly acknowledged by respondent No. 3, vide Annexure P-9. Earnest money already deposited by him was in excess of what was required for a plot measuring 100 square yards. On 7.1.1985 there was a publication Annexure P-10 in the "Sunday Tribune" on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the following effect:- "The plots of 100 square yards are not available in Samrala Road square Urban Estate, Sector 38 and 39. Therefore, all applicants of 100 square yards plots can opt for allotment of 125 square yards plots. Their options along with the additional amount should reach the Estate Officer. Urban Estate, Punjab. Mini. Secretariat, Ludhiana, through demand draft by 15.7.1985. Demand draft should be payable in favour of the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab Ludhiana". The amount of earnest money payable for 125 stare yards plots was enhanced to Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner was supposed to deposit a sum of Rs. 937.50p. in addition to the amount already deposited so as to complete the earnest money in pursuance of the public notice Annexure P-10. But no individual notice requiring him to pay this additional amount of earnest money was ever received by him. Respondent No. 3 allotted plots measuring 125 square yards to many other intending purchasers without considering the case of the petitioner which, according to him, is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He filed an appeal Annexure P-12 before the Chief Administrator, Urban Estate, Punjab, respondent No. 2, praying that he should be allotted a plot after allowing him opportunity to deposit additional amount of earnest money. Instead of granting relief to him, as prayed for, respondent No. 2, directed respondent No. 3 to consider upgradation of his application to the category to 200 square yards plot, vide order Annexure P.13 Instead of complying with this order, respondent No. 3 reported to respondent No. 2, vide his letter Annexure P-14, that there was no scheme for upgradation of an application to give the applicant a plot of larger size. There was yet another advertisement Annexure P-15 in the newspaper on 18.5.1986, stating that plots mentioned in the notice. The petitioner approached the office of respondent No. 3 on 20.5.1986 for allotment of a plot. According to his income, he was not entitled to a plot of more than 200 square yards. He sent a representation dated 24.5.1986 (Annexure P-16) under a registered cover to respondent No. 3 praying that he should be permitted to deposit the balance of earnest money amounting to Rs. 2937/- so as to make a deposit of Rs. 4000/- but there was no response. He has thus approached this Court through the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to allot him a plot of the size for which he is eligible. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The facts stated in the petition are not disputed. It is, however, contended that there is no legal right of the petitioner which has been infringed and he cannot seek a writ of mandamus for allotment of a plot to him. It is also contended that, In pursuance of the public notice Annexure P-10, the petitioner ought to have deposited the balance amount of earnest money in order to make himself eligible for draw of lots for allotment of a plot, held on 30.7.1985. No individual notice was required to be served on him. Since he did not do so, he missed the bus.
(2.) I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner has been dealt with in a ham-handed manner. The Government is a Government of Laws and is not to act like a private individual. The statutory authorities cannot shelter behind technicalities. It was but just and proper to issue a notice to the petitioner requiring him to opt for a plot of a size other than 125 square yards when under the policy revised repeatedly, plots revised repeatedly, plots of this size were not available and to ask him to deposit the difference between the earnest money required and what he had already deposited. But the has not been done. His subsequent requests for payment of additional earnest money attracted no response. In these circumstances, I find that the interest of justice requires that the case of the petitioner should be considered by the respondents for allotment of a plot of a size to which he is eligible on payment of the balance amount of earnest money.
(3.) I, therefore, direct the respondents, by issuance of a writ of mandam is to consider the application of the petitioner, already made by him and allot him a plot of the size to which he is eligible under the Rules by securing the requisite earnest money, in addition to the amount already deposited by him, within two months. The petitioner shall also get costs of this writ petition, which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.;