- (1.) IN this act of 24 Civil writ petitions, the points of fact and law are utterly identical and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment would cover all of them.
(2.) IN view of the identity of the facts, it suffices to advert to those in civil writ petition No. 1447 of 1976 Madan Lal v. State of Punjab in which the main arguments were addressed by Mr. H. L. Sibal whilst the other learned counsel virtually rested themselves content by adoption the same.
(3.) THE primary claim herein is to the title and possession of a two-kanal plot by the petitioners in the Bhatinda Urban Estate and the sale of sites therein s averred to be governed by the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 and the Punjab Urban Estates (Sales of Sites) Rules, 1965 framed thereunder. It is averred that respondent No. 2 the Estate Officer invited applications with earnest money of 10 percent regarding the allotment of two-kanal plots = plots in the urban estate aforesaid under Rule 5. of the Rules above mentioned. The petitioners submitted an application along with a Demand Draft dated 28th of October, 1971 for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for the allotment of a two-kanal plot. Apparently, much later on the 26th of February, 1972, respondent No. 2 is alleged to have put in an advertisement in 'the Tribune', in the following terms:- " the allotment of residential plots of one,-kanal, 10 marlas and 7 1/2 marlas in the Urban Estate, Bhatinda, will be made by draw of lots on 28-2-1972 at 11 A. M. in the premises of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Bhatinda Two-kanal plots will be sold on cash down basis. Intending purchasers including those who have already applied should send their applications along with bank draft of Rs. 25,000/representing tentative price of the plot, drawn in favour of Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab, Chandigarh to Smt. Susheel Gupta, Executive Magistrate,. Bhatinda or to the undersigned by l5th March, 1972. " In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners forwarded e sum of Rs. 22,500/- by a Demand Draft with a covering letter to the Estate Officer. It is the claim that thereby the full consideration for a two-kanal plot was duly despatched in accordance with the advertisement. It is then claimed that the respondents accepted the aforesaid amount and took a decision for the allotment of a plot in favour of the petitioners which was conveyed to them vide annexure P/1, whereby they directed to comply with the conditions specified in the same. In accordance therewith the petitioners submitted their affidavit and also a letter of acceptance and claim to have complied with the requisite formalities desired by the Estate Officer. On this basis, the petitioners claim that a complete contract was established between the petitioners and the respondents for the allotment of a two-kanal plot in the Urban Estate of Bhatinda. It is averred that thereafter the petitioners were entitled to secure possession of such a plot in accordance with R. 7, but nevertheless the same was inordinately delayed despite repeated enquiries and demands made by them. Instead, they received a communication (annexure P/2) dated the 20th of November, 1974 desiring them to intimate whether they were willing to accept a one-kanal plot instead of a two-kanal plot and if so, to intimate their acceptance within 15 days. The petitioners, however, insisted on their claim of a two-kanal plot and despite repeated reminders and communications no further action was taken by the respondents. On these facts, the petitioners assail the validity of annexure P/2 and seek the ultimate relief of a mandamus for the delivery of the possession of a two-kenal plot to them forthwith and in the alternative, if for one reason or the other, a two-kanal plot cannot he made available immediately then. two contiguous one-kanal plots be allotted and possession be delivered in lieu of the price already paid.;