Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Singh Jaspal And Others vs Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... on 6 January, 2012
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
RSA No. 4335 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYAN AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4335 of 2011
Date of decision: .1.2012
Kewal Singh Jaspal and others
... Appellants
versus
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Chandigarh and
another.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH, J.
Present: Mr.Vikas Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Respondents ex-parte.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Kewal Singh Jaspal and others filed this regular second appeal to impugn the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali, in Civil Suit No. RT-474 of 23.9.2002/24.7.2006.
Appellants-plaintiffs filed main suit for declaration on the allegation that Kartar Singh son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of Village Sarih, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, applied for residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards with the respondents along with earnest money vide application bearing Receipt No.9336. Kartar Singh expired on 20.5.1984 and his wife also expired on 21.1.1993 issueless. Appellants are the legal heirs of Kartar Singh. In the year 1994, respondents allowed pending applications to transfer their registration in the name of other persons by RSA No. 4335 of 2011 2 charging nominal fee of Rs.1/- per sq. yard and taking the advantage of this permission of transfer and death of Kartar Singh, some officials of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) forged the document for transfer of registration No.9336 in the name of one Balwinder Kaur, employee of PUDA. Regarding transfer of application of dead person, matter was taken up by the Vigilance Department and after enquiry, case was registered against the employees of PUDA. Summons were sent to the original applicant, namely, Kartar Singh to appear before the Vigilance Department, then the appellants came to know about the said fraud. Respondents through public notice dated 3.9.1995 as well as individual notice gave chance to old eligible applicants to complete necessary formalities and deposit balance amount of 10% earnest money at the rate of Rs.1400/- per sq. yard and the appellants being legal heirs of Kartar Singh deposited Rs.70,000/- against registration No.9336 in the Estate Office vide Receipt No.85 Book No. 6 along with death certificate of Kartar Singh and application dated 4.10.1995. Appellants also obtained succession certificate dated 1.12.1992 qua the property and earnest money of Rs.62,000/- deposited against R.No.9336 from the competent Court and submitted the same in the Estate Office along with application dated 2.7.1997. Different applications dated 19.9.1997 and 22.8.1998 were sent for allotment of plot against R.No.9336 but no action by the respondents. Respondents held a draw of lots for allotment of plots on 7.6.2000 to about 80 similarly situated applicants in Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, but Registration No.9336 was not considered for allotment in the said draw of lots despite completion of formalities by the appellants. Notice dated 1.4.2002 was also issued to the respondents but no action.
RSA No. 4335 of 2011 3
Respondents filed joint written statement by admitting this fact that Kartar Singh had applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards with required earnest money and his application was registered at No.9336. Registration No.9336 was transferred in the name of Balwinder Kaur on the application dated 6.5.1994 of Kartar Singh. This fact was also admitted that Rs.70,000/- was deposited by the appellants against Registration No.9336 along with death certificate of Kartar Singh. Appellants also submitted application for allotment of plot on 22.8.1998 but no action because file was with the Vigilance Department. Information was given to the attorney of the appellants vide letter No.7420 dated 1.3.2001 to deposit the price of the plot at the new rate by 16.3.2001 and to submit his option as to whether ready or not to take plot at the new rate but the said letter was received undelivered with the report that no such person was residing at the given address. Due to this reason, Registration No.9336 was not included in the draw. There was publication in the news paper whereby old applicants were informed to submit their consent for allotment of plots in Sectors 76 to 80 but no consent from the side of the appellants.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the draw of plots held on 7.6.2000 is illegal, null and void? OPP
3. Whether the action of the defendants ignoring the claim of plaintiffs qua Registration No.9336 is illegal, null and void? OPP RSA No. 4335 of 2011 4
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether the alleged documents of transfer by deceased Kartar Singh are forged? OPP
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
7. Relief."
No evidence was led by the respondents.
After going through the evidence on the file, suit of the appellants was decreed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.2009, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the appellants within a period of one year.
After filing of regular second appeal, notice of motion was issued but despite service, respondents failed to turn up.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Kartar Singh had applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards. Application of Kartar Singh was registered at No.9336. Kartar Singh died issueless on 20.5.1984. Wife of Kartar Singh died on 21.1.1993. In the year 1994, respondents allowed the pending applications to transfer their registration in the name of other persons by depositing requisite fee. Taking advantage of permission of transfer and death of Kartar Singh and his wife, employees of respondents by forging the documents transferred R.No.9336 in the name of Balwinder Kaur, employee of the respondents. When Kartar Singh had died in the year 1984 and his wife in the year 1993, then in the year 1994, on the application of Kartar Singh, there was no question to transfer R.No.9336 in the name of an employee of the respondents. RSA No. 4335 of 2011 5 Rs.70,000/- was deposited with the respondents against R.No.9336 vide Receipt No.85 Book No.6. Death certificate of Kartar Singh was also submitted. Case of the appellants was not considered because regarding transfer of R.No.9336 of dead person in the name of Balwinder Kaur, employee of the respondents, matter was pending with the Vigilance Department. Second allegation of the respondents not to consider case of the appellants was that intimation was given to the appellants vide letter No.7420 dated 1.3.2001 to deposit the price of plot at the new rate by 16.3.2001 and to report as to whether they are ready to take plot or not at the new rate but letter was received undelivered. R.No.9336 was not included in the draw. Before draw, no intimation to the appellants because draw of plots was held on 7.6.2000. After the draw, there was no idea to request the appellants through their attorney as per letter No.7420 dated 1.3.2001 to deposit the price of the plot at the new rate by 16.3.2001. Suit of the appellants was decreed by the trial Court but no action by the respondents. Case of the appellants was not considered. Respondents are liable for contempt of Court. Notice to the respondents be issued for contempt of Court. No evidence was led by the respondents before the trial Court. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, no appeal by the respondents. Payment is lying deposited with the respondents but the respondents are not complying with the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. No explanation why payment was kept by the respondents. Application of the appellants, i.e., R.No.9336 should have been considered along with old similarly situated applicants at the time of draw of plots on 7.6.2000. In case matter was pending with the Vigilance Department, then R.No.9336 should have been considered because in view of application of RSA No. 4335 of 2011 6 Kartar Singh, who died on 20.5.1984, R.No. 9336 cannot be transferred in the name of Balwinder Kaur, employee of PUDA. PUDA is to allot plots in different sectors at the new rates. Appellants are ready to deposit payment to get plot at the new rate prevalent when draw was held on 7.6.2000. Appellants are also ready to get the plot at the new rate when suit was instituted on 23.9.2002 or at the time of decision of the suit on 3.3.2009. Appellants are also ready to get the plot at the new rates prevalent in the year 2010 because as per judgment of the trial Court, case of the appellants was to be considered within a period of one year, i.e., upto 3.3.2010. Respondents are not obeying the judgment of trial Court and no explanation why they are keeping earnest money when they are not to allot the plot. Sole purpose of the respondents is to fleece the poor people. If the respondents were aggrieved, then they should have filed appeal against the judgment of the lower Court but no appeal. First appeal was preferred by the appellants but after the decision of first Appellate Court, again no action by the respondents. No allegation of the respondents before the First Appellate Court that case was considered. The case of the appellants is pending with the respondents for the last more than 30 years. Direction be given to allot plot within one month. Further submitted that if direction is given by the High Court to comply the order, even then the order of the High Court is not to be obeyed by the respondents.
After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned counsel for the appellants seems to be correct one.
Admittedly, Kartar Singh had applied for the allotment of residential plot measuring 500 sq. yards at SAS Nagar, Mohali, with earnest money. Application of Kartar Singh was registered at R.No.9336. RSA No. 4335 of 2011 7
Kartar Singh had died on 20.5.1984 and his wife had died on 21.1.1993.
In the year 1994, respondents allowed the old applicants to transfer their registration in the name of other persons by charging Rs.1/- per sq. yard. So, taking the benefit of permission of transfer and death of Kartar Singh and his wife, employees of PUDA by forging the documents, transferred R.No.9336 in the name of Balwinder Kaur, employee of PUDA.
Regarding transfer of R.No.9336 of dead person, matter was pending with the Vigilance Department. When notice was sent to Kartar Singh by Vigilance Department, then appellants came to know about the fraud by the employees of PUDA.
Respondents through public notice dated 3.9.1995, gave chance to old eligible applicants to complete necessary formalities and deposit balance 10% earnest money. Appellants have deposited Rs.70,000/- against R.No.9336 vide Receipt No.86 Book No.6. Death certificate of Kartar Singh along with application dated 4.10.1995 was also deposited. Appellants also obtained succession certificate dated 1.12.1992. This fact is clear from the letters sent by the appellants exhibited as Ex.P1 dated 2.9.1995, Ex.P3 dated 10.9.1997 and Ex.P5 dated 2.1.2002. Photocopy of receipt regarding deposit of Rs.70,000/- along with death certificate of Kartar Singh and succession certificate was also sent.
On 7.6.2000, respondents held a draw of lots to allot plots to similarly situated old applicants in Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, but R.No.9336 of the appellants was not considered despite the fact that the appellants completed all formalities. Plea of the respondents is that R.No.9336 was transferred in the name of Balwinder Kaur on the RSA No. 4335 of 2011 8 application of Kartar Singh of 1994. Respondents admitted that Rs.70,000/- was deposited against R.No.9336 and death certificate of Kartar Singh was also produced. Respondents admitted that appellants submitted an application for allotment of plot on 22.8.1998 but matter was with the Vigilance Department. So, due to this reason, no action by the respondents. Second allegation of the respondents is that vide letter No.7420 dated 1.3.2001, intimation was sent to the attorney of the appellants to deposit the price of the plot at the new rate by 16.3.2001 and to report as to whether the appellants are ready to get the plot at the new rate, but the said letter was received undelivered. So, R.No.9336 was not included in the draw of plots. As discussed earlier, Kartar Singh had died on 20.5.1984. In the year, 1995, the appellants had requested the respondents to inform as to how much amount was to be deposited and this fact is clear from the letter (Ex.P1) dated 9.2.1995.
Appellants again sent letter dated 10.9.1997, copy of which is Ex.P3. Along with the letter, death certificate of Kartar Singh, succession certificate and receipt regarding deposit of Rs.70,000/- were also submitted. When the respondents had the knowledge of death of Kartar Singh and the appellants were requesting the respondents to inform as to how much amount is to be deposited, then respondents cannot argue that letter was written to the attorney of the appellants on 1.3.2001 to report as to whether the appellants are ready to get the plot at the new rate by 16.3.2001. Draw of plots of similarly situated applicants was held on 7.6.2000. Then after the draw, there was no idea to write letter No.7420 dated 1.3.2001 requesting the appellants to report as to whether they are ready to get the plot at the new rate by 16.3.2001. No employee of PUDA with record came RSA No. 4335 of 2011 9 forward to show that before the draw of plots on 7.6.2000, the appellants were requested to report as to whether they are ready to get the plot at the new rate. No allegation of the respondents that appellants had refused to get the plots at the new rate and they failed to complete formalities. Allegation of the respondents is that letter No.7420 dated 1.3.2001 was sent to the attorney of the appellants but the same was received back undelivered with the report that no such person was residing at the given address.
As per judgment of lower Court, respondents were directed to consider the case of the appellants within a period of one year but no action by the respondents. Against the finding of trial Court, no appeal by the respondents.
Appeal was preferred by the appellants but before the first Appellate Court, no plea of the respondents that case of the appellants was considered as per the judgment of lower Court. That means, respondents have no respect of the Courts. Intentionally they are disobeying the judgment of Civil Court. Appellants are at liberty to approach the concerned Civil Court to initiate proceedings for committing the contempt of Court. Something could be said if respondents would have argued that case of the appellants was considered as per the judgment of trial Court but case was rejected.
When appellants are not at fault, then respondents should have allotted plot at the same rate when draw of plots of similarly situated applicants was held on 7.6.2000. But appellants are ready to get the plot at the rate when suit was instituted in the year 2002. They are ready to get the plot at the rate prevalent when the suit was decreed on 3.3.2009. They are also ready to get the plot at the rate prevalent on 3.3.2010 because their case RSA No. 4335 of 2011 10 was to be considered within a period of one year from the date of judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 3.3.2009 but the respondents are not ready to consider the request of the appellants. Respondents are allotting plots in different sectors against payment at the new rate prevalent at that time. From the very beginning, appellants are ready to get the plot at the new rate but despite judgment of Civil Court, no action by the respondents. When death of Kartar Singh was in the year 1984 and death certificate of Kartar Singh, succession certificate and receipt regarding deposit of Rs.70,000/- were sent to the respondents vide letter (Ex.P3), then very strange that in view of application of Kartar Singh, deceased, R.No.9336 was transferred in the name of Balwinder Kaur, employee of the respondents, and case of appellants was not considered on the allegation that matter was pending with the Vigilance Department and as per letter of the respondents No.7420 dated 1.3.2001, no response from the side of the appellants.
For the reasons recorded above, respondents are directed to allot plot measuring 500 sq. yards to the appellants within a period of one month from receipt of certified copy of the judgment, situated in Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, and if no plot in Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, is available, then allot plot measuring 500 sq. yards in Sectors 76 to 80, SAS Nagar, Mohali, at the rate prevalent on 3.3.2010 because Civil Suit was decided on 3.3.2009 by the trial Court and within one year, plot was to be allotted to the appellants.
With the aforesaid modification, RSA No.4335 of 2011 is disposed of.
6.1.2012 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE