I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was allotted a plot (No. 445 in Phase X) measuring 200 square yards or 8 marlas in the Urban Estate of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) by the Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, vide his memo No. S4/P. 445 Phase X/80 dated May 16. 1980 (Annexure P. 1) on the terms and conditions stated therein. Later vide memo dated June 17, 1980 (Annexure P -2). she was permitted to exchange the said plot with a bigger plot (No. 598 in Phase I of the said Urban Estate) measuring 10 marlas on the same terms and conditions as contained in Annexure P. 1 but with a proportionate increase in the price on account of the increase in the area. Still later the allotment of this last mentioned plot was cancelled by the Estate Officer vide his communication dated November 27, 1980 (Annexure P -5) for the following reasons: 3. Due to complaints of undue haste and to favour certain persons in the matter of allotment of plots in Urban Estate SAS Nagar consequent upon carving out of plots from the vacant land/ sites of Urban Estate SAS Nagar in the recent past, the matter has been reconsidered by the Government in the light of technical advice. On reconsideration, the Government have decided to cancel the planning (lay out plan not duly prepared) in relation to the vacant land/sites of the Urban Estate SAS Nagar inter alia to ensure proper planning and development of SAS Nagar Urban Estate. 4. Your plot No. 595 Phase Ist Urban Estate SAS Nagar falls in the land effected by the orders of the Government. In the context explained in the aforegoing paras, the allotment of the plot vide letter under reference stands cancelled. You may, therefore, obtain the refund of the amount deposited.
(2.) IT deserves to be mentioned here that similar other allotments made in Phase I of this Urban Estate were also cancelled by the Government for the same very reasons as stated in Annexure P. 5. These cancellations were challenged by the allottees through their respective writ petitions and one of the judgments in those cases in Sh. Bhagwant Singh v. The State of Punjab 1983 P. L. J. 386. The order of cancellation was quashed on the ground that the same was violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the allottee prior to the passing of the said order. The State authorities preferred letters patent appeals against the judgments of the learned Single Judge in these cases and the same were disposed of through a common judgment now reported as The State of Punjab v. Sh. Bhagwant Singh, 1984 P. L. J 508. The letters patent appeals were allowed with the following observation: In the result, these appeals are allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside to the extent it quashed the impugned order. It is further ordered that the Respondents in all these appeals shall file review petitions as envisaged by Sub -section (2) of Section 11 -A within a month from the date of this judgment and the competent authority shall pass a fresh order on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to the allottees in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. It is the conceded position that the State authorities have gone to the Supreme Court against this judgment of the Letters Patent Bench and the matter is pending there. Somehow this petition could not be disposed of along with the petitions of the other allottees referred to above and before it could be taken up for disposal on merits, the State authorities withdrew the impugned order (Annexure P. 5) of the cancellation and served the Petitioner with a show -cause notice dated March 23. 1982 (Annexure P. 7) as to why the allotment of the above noted plot in Phase I as well as the initially allotted plot in Phase X in her favour be not cancelled. The Petitioner submitted a written reply to the same but it proved ineffective and the allotment of both the plots referred to above was cancelled by the Respondent authorities vide memo No. SUD -I/4555 dated May 22, 1982, (Annexure P. 9). The Petitioner has suitably amended her petition to impugn this order also. It is this order of the Government the validity of which is now under challenge before me. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Bar -at -law, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, has stated before me that his client does not want to cling on to plot No. 595 of Phase 1 any more as. according to him, the matter is not likely to be finalised in the near future in view of the pendency, of the proceedings in the Supreme Court qua similar allotments and she gives up her claim to that plot. He, however, maintains that so far as the cancellation of the initially allotted plot No, 445 of Phase X to the Petitioner is concerned, the order of cancellation is totally arbitrary and without jurisdiction. His case is that though this cancellation is purported to have been made under Section 11 -A of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964, yet the impugned order is not at all covered by the said provision. The relevant part of this section reads as follows : 11 -A. (1) If it appears to the State Government that any sale, lease or other transfer of any site in an urban estate has been made in contravention of this Act or any rules made thereunder or is fraudulent or is otherwise inexpedient, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or any other law for the time being in force, by an order in writing, stating reasons therefore, cancel such sale, lease or other transfer. Bis submission further is that all that has been mentioned about this plot in the show -cause notice Annexure P. 7, is as follows: (vi) Government ordered allotment in your favour on 15th May, 1980 and you Were addressed a letter on the next day, i e., 16th May, 1980 by the Estate Officer to complete the formalities on the same day i. e. 16th May, 1980, and on 16th May, 1980 itself the allotment letter was issued; (vii) you are allowed to make the payment of the price of the plot in instalments without ascertaining your paying capacity as required under the policy of the Government.
(3.) HE urges that it was only in the light of these facts that it was opined in this notice that the above noted facts indicated "undue haste" and "fraudulent nature of the allotment". Inspite of a detailed reply (Annexure P. 8) to this notice, running into seven typed pages to highlight that there was no element of fraud involved in the matter, the authorities chose to cancel the same with the observation, as already indicated, in exercise of their powers under Section 11 -A of the Act.;