VIJAY RATTAN Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A plot of land measuring 30'X60' was allotted in the name of one Brij Krishan Sadhu. As the said plot was a corner plot, an additional premium of Rs. 1000/- was charged from the said allottee and the plot was numbered as Plot No. P-10, situate in Sector No. 7, Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu. Adjacent to this plot a strip of land measuring 600 Sqft was also allotted to the original allottee on payment of extra premium. Thus the size of the plot became 2400 Sqft. Consequent to the allotment a lease deed was also executed with the Jammu Development Authority. The lease hold rights came to be transferred by the original allottee in favour of the petitioner on payment of the requisite transfer fee amounting to Rs. 14333/-. On deposit of the said amount necessary permission was granted by the respondents on 27.12.2005 for the execution of the lease deed and, accordingly, lease hold rights were transferred in favour of the petitioner. An extra strip of land existed adjacent to Plot No. 10-P, which was reserved for development of the green patch along side the main road. It transpires that said piece of land was being allotted to some influential person with the result that the corner plot status of the plot of the petitioner would diminish, for which he has paid the extra premium. Accordingly, petitioner applied to the respondents for allotment of this piece of land also in his favour. The size of the piece of land, as reflected in the dimensions shown by the respondents, is 4266 Sqft..

(2.) As the petitioner's request for allotment of this piece of land was still under process, respondent no.2 submitted a new proposal for carving out a new plot and modifying the lay out plan, in making allotment of plot measuring 4266 Sqft in favour of respondent no.3. It seems that respondent no.3 was allotted plot measuring 40'X80' in Roop Nagar Housing Colony, on 28.02.1996 against a premium of Rs. 90,000/-, which was required to be paid in two installments. Respondent no.3 did not chose to deposit the amount, except an amount of Rs. 9000/- which he had deposited along with his application. Respondent no.3 did not deposit the remaining amount for a period of ten years and finally on 19.01.2006 he made an application that remaining amount be accepted and plot be allotted to him. The official respondents showed favorable inclination in not only allotting plot measuring 4182 Sqft in Sector No.7 in his favour but also directed the respondent no.3 to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 4,65,432/- within 30 days, which included 10% extra charges for corner plot. This order of allotment has been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that, earlier letter of allotment issued in favour of respondent no.3 in the year 1996 for allotment of plot of land, was only a letter of intent and did not confer any right on the said respondent and on his failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, his right to allotment has extinguished and could not be claimed after a lapse of ten years. It is stated that by allotment of said plot of land to respondent no.3, the status of the petitioner's plot as "Corner Plot" has diminished, for which he has paid the extra premium. It is further contended that allotment in favour of respondent no.3 was illegal as Chief Town Planner was not competent to modify the lay out plan nor could he alter the dimension of the plot already allotted to the petitioner. Allotment, even if to be made, was to be done by auction or by draw of lots. This is the case set out by the petitioner.