DEV DUTT KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dev Dutt Kaushik and 22 others, residents of village Mataur and Lambe, tehsil Kharar, district Ropar, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing decision of the Government contained in Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 and for issuing necessary directions to allot residential plots to the petitioners. Land of the petitioner in village Mataur and Lambe, tehsil Kharar, was acquired for development of Urban Estate of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali). As per policy decision of the Government contained in letter dated April 17, 1974, all the landowners whose land was acquired were to be allotted plots before allotment of such plots to others. The petitioners and several others applied for allotment of plots measuring 8 marlas each whereas Prem Chand petitioner applied for allotment of plot measuring 6 marlas. At that time the tentative market value of the plot was fixed at the rate of Rs. 58/- per square yard and the petitioners were required to deposit 25 per cent of the price of the plot which was done. Subsequently, the price of the plots was raised to Rs. 85/- per square yard and thus petitioners were asked to cover up the deficiency. The total amount paid by the petitioners with their registration numbers and the area required is given in the writ petition. In spite of the fact that the money deposited remained with the State, plots were not allotted. The amount of cheques deposited by petitioners No. 9 to 14 was wrongly returned after about a year on the ground that only one plot could be allotted to them jointly in view of the revised policy of the Government. Several times the respondents were approached for allotment of plots to the petitioners. However, the petitioners received letters, one of them being Annexure P. 1, wherein it was indicated that the oustees (persons like the petitioners) were not to be allotted plots more than 200 square yards each and for the same the criteria adopted was as follows :-

(2.) On behalf of the respondents written statement was filed by Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab. In the preliminary objections, it was stated that policy of 1981, as framed by the Government was under challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4528 of 1980 (Dila Singh V. State of Pb., 1984 RRR 523) and seventeen other writ petitions. The said writ petition of Dila Singh was dismissed on May 31, 1983 (DILA SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB, 1983 PunLJ 417). Letters Patent Appeal No. 1032 of 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 521 of 1982 (Dev Raj V. State of Punjab) was also dismissed by this Court on December 12, 1983. The State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petition No. 6458 of 1982, in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated May, 1982 passed in C.W.P. No. 4837 of 1981. The Supreme Court stayed operation of the judgment of this Court. Thus, further allotment of plots was not made. The Government could revise the policy regarding disposal of plots as held by this Court in certain decisions. The petitioners had no legally enforceable right as there was no commitments or promises made by the State. Earnest money was returned to petitioners Nos. 10 to 22, i.e. Amar Singh, Shiv Singh and Chaman Lal, at their request. The writ petition qua them was liable to be dismissed as infructuous. On merits, it was alleged that the allotment policy was revised in 1981 and the petitioners and others were asked to give options. They were asked to deposit 25 per cent price of the plots. No person could claim as a matter of right allotment of plot unless allotment is made. Policy of 1981 was revised in 1983 and the case of the petitioners for allotment of plots would be considered under the prevalent policy. The Government eliminated the clause of income in the case of the oustees in the 1983 revised policy. Thus, the petitioners could be considered for allotment on the basis of their area of land acquired. With respect to the allotment of plots already made, it was stated that those persons were allotted plot as their applications were received prior to the petitioners. Thus, there was no discrimination. It was admitted that allotment letters were issued to five of the petitioners and they were asked to complete the requisite formalities under the then allotment policy. Only two out of them completed the formalities. Allotment did not attain finalisation as far as the other three were concerned. It was stated that the plots had been kept reserved for the petitioners and would be allotted as per orders of the Court. The cases of the petitioners for allotment of plots would be considered as per prevalent policy.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following points :-