Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish Kumar Virja vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 2 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1995)110PLR117
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions (No. 15867 of 1992 K.G. Prashar and Anr. v. State of Haryana others and 16437 of 1991 'Harish Kumar Virja v. State of Haryana and Anr.') as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 16437 of 1991 (Harish Kumar Virja v. State of Haryana and Anr.).
2. Harish Kumar Virja seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash Annexure P-1 vide which he has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 21,710/- in addition to the price already settled for allotting plot to him way back in the year 1980. This extra price is being asked on the sole ground that the prices of the plots prevalent in the year 1990, when letter, Annexure P-l, was issued, necessarily require deposit of Rs. 21,710/-.
3. Brief facts of the case reveal that father of petitioner late Shri Mangat Ram Virja applied for allotment of plot measuring 299 Sq. metres through Sainik Board, Gurgaon in the year 1978 and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- vide receipt dated October 26, 1978. He was also asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1775/- towards earnest money which was also deposited. On March 27, 1980 he was informed that plot measuring 299 Sq. metres had not come in draw in his favour but he would be accommodated for plot measuring 135 sq. metres. This offer was accepted by him and resultantly plot No. 1499 measuring 135 sq. metres was offered to him Sector 17, Gurgaon. However, when he went to take possession of the said plot, he was told by the Engineer concerned that even though the plot existed on the map but in reality it was not there. That being so, he was assured that he would get plot in lieu of Plot No. 1499/17. On September 7, 1978 the Estate Officer intimated to him that he had been allotted Plot No. 1263 in Sector 17, Gurgaon in lieu of plot No. 1499, Sector 17, Gurgaon. He was delivered letter of possession on October 6, 1984. The Estate Of- ficer further intimated to him on September 11, 1987 that Plot No.-1263 in Sector 17 was cancelled in view of it being allotted under discretionary quota. This confusion was promptly removed by saying that the said plot had been allotted to him as an ex- serviceman and it had not come to him on discretionary quota basis. The same was, however, restored. The mother of petitioner, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, made request to the Estate Officer on January 21, 1991 to transfer the plot No. 1263 in Sector 17 in the name of petitioner, who was in government service and had capacity to raise loan to construct the house. This request was acceded to and plot was transferred in the name of petitioner vide letter dated May 10,1990 which was conveyed to him on September 10, 1990. For ten long years thus nothing happened in the matter and it was only on May 27,1991 that petitioner to his complete dismay and disappointment received letter, Annexure P-l asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 21710/-. It is this demand, as earlier mentioned, which has been challenged in the present petition styling the same to be wholly arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jain, vehemently contends that there was no justification whatsoever for the respondents to have kept on shifting the petitioner from one plot to another and then ultimately to ask him after ten years of the initial' allotment to pay the price that was prevalent in the year 1990.
5. The matter has been opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the facts as stated in the writ have not been disputed but all that has been stated to deny the claim of petitioner is that it was under compelling circumstances that petitioner or his father had to be shifted from one plot to another.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the action of respondents in is- suing letter, Annexure P-l, asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 21.710/- is wholly unjustified. If the plot that was initially allotted to the father of the petitioner was not in existence and was yet allotted to him or if later on the other plot given to him was not somehow delivered possession of either to the petitioner or his father, it is the respondent authorities who have to be blamed. Petitioner or his father had no hand in it. The allotment of plot was exclusively in the domain of respondents. If for some reason or the other respondents would not give possession of the plot allotted to the father of petitioner there was no justification to charge which was prevalent after ten years. On the one hand, petitioner was deprived of taking possession and constructing the house upto 1990, on the other hand, he has been asked to pay more price of the plot. This is a common knowledge that the cost of construction has sky- rocketed during the last ten years. The action of the respondents in delaying the allotment of plot to the petitioner has already worked a lot of hardship to him as he will not be able to construct the plot with the cost he would have had the plot been allotted to him in the year 1980. The ordeal of petitioner has increased many fold by charging him the price of the plot prevalent in the year 1990. Thus, finding no jus- tification for the respondents to charge price in 'addition to what has already been paid by the petitioner, Annexure P-l is quashed.
7. In Civil Writ Petition No. 15867 of 1992 (K.G. Prashar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.) petitioners were allotted plot No. 712 in the year 1985 measuring 10 Marlas in Sector 14(II), Karnal. The possession of this plot was not given to them and the same was changed to plot No. 1815 (sic) Sector 9, Karnal. Petitioners had paid all the instalments in time. However, on April 3, 1992, they were asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,819.15/- for alternative plot No. 1815 Sector 9, Karnal. Again the respondents could not offer and actually given possession of plot No. 712 in Sector 14(II), Karnal for which petitioners could not possibly be blamed. Once again in this case as well petitioners were asked to pay the price prevalent in the year 1992. There is absolutely no justification asking the petitioners to cough up an extra amount in this manner after six years.
8. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions are. allowed and respondents are directed not to charge additional amount as asked by them vide Annexure P-l. In Civil Writ Petition No. 15867 of 1992 (KG. Prashar's case), respondents are directed to give possession of the plot allotted to them forthwith. In Civil Writ Petition No. 16437 of 1991 (Harish Kumar Virja's case) possession was got delivered to the petitioner vide interim orders passed by the Motion Bench and the same is ordered to be regularised. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.