Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 December, 2014
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Hari Pal Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 09.12.2014
CWP No. 25137 of 2014
Avtar Kaur and others ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioners.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the conditions communicated in the communication dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-11) before making allotment of residential plots to the petitioners. The said conditions read as under:
"1. That before making allotments, the allottees should be required to submit an affidavit that they do not have any plot/house anywhere in India.
2. The allotments be made at the current collector rates.
3. If some allottee is not interested in allotment, his earnest money be refunded within 12% interest.
4. The decision taken in different cases by the Courts shall also be applicable in this allotment."
In response to an advertisement in the year 1982, the petitioners have submitted applications for allotment of plots. The petitioners were successful in the draw of lots, but before the letters of allotment could be VIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2 issued, such plots became part of the City Centre being developed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Consequently, the letters of allotment pursuant to the draw of lots were not issued. Subsequently, after a prolonged litigation, it has been decided to allot plots to the old applicants such as the petitioners subject to the above-mentioned conditions.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners applied for plots in the year 1982 and now to seek an affidavit that the applicants do not own any plot/house anywhere in India is detrimental to their interest and is vague. The condition of not owning a plot/house in the same urban area can be said to be justified, but not owning a plot/house in the entire country is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is also contended that the condition is that the allotment shall be made at the current Collector rate is again de hors the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rule, 1983 (for short 'the Rule'). The Collector rate is not contemplated as the condition of allotment under the said Rules. Since the petitioners were before the Court since long and the directions were issued in the year 2012, at best the respondents could claim allotment price as the price prevailing in the year 2012.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present petition. Mere submission of application in the year 1982 does not confer any right to seek allotment. Such is the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, (1979) 81 PLR 413, when it was held to the following effect:
"9. ........By filing an application in accordance with law, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application, but he does not get a vested right for allotment of the plot. The conditions laid down in the first scheme or the provisions of rule 5(3) do not give any right to the VIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 3 applicants to claim allotment of plots as a matter of right. There is nothing in the scheme or the Act or the Rules which requires the adop- tion of the principle of `first come first served' at the time of allotment, or debars the Government from adopting the method of drawing lots. The petitioners have not been able to lay foundation for establishing their right which could legally be enforced and the petitioners have completely failed to make out a case for the exercise of our extraordi- nary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Since the respondents have now decided to make allotment of plots, the condition that the allottees should not have any plot/house anywhere in India is in larger public interest so as to allow the persons, who do not own house, an opportunity for allotment of house rather than one person to own more than one plot. Therefore, we do not find such condition as arbitrary and unreasonable.
A Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011 titled 'Haryana Urban Development Authority & others Vs. Sandeep & others' decided on 25.04.2012 has considered the question in respect of price to be charged from the allottee. It has been held that the price prevailing on the day of allotment can be charged. The Special Leave Petition against the said judgment has also been dismissed. The relevant extract from Sandeep's case (supra) is reproduced as under:
"Question No.8. What price could be charged from an allottee i.e. price prevailing on the date the allotment or when the Sector is floated first?
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the price, applicable on the date of allotment, is chargeable from an allottee and not the price, which was once fixed at the time of floatation of sector. It is contended that price of the plots keep varying keeping in view the cost of acquisition, development work and other numerous factors which go into determination of the price. It is contended that the VIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 4 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. HUDA (2011) 2 SCC 29 is of no help to the oustees. In the said case, the appellant was not allotted plot when HUDA offered residential plots in Sector - 4, Karnal. The two questions arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In respect of first question i.e. whether HUDA should charge only the actual land cost plus development charges for the plots allotted to an oustee and not the market price/normal allotment price; the Court returned a finding that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplates only benefits like solatium, additional amount and higher rate of interest to the oustees and not allotment of plots at cost price. HUDA or the State Government does not have any scheme providing for allotment of plots at actual cost of oustees. Therefore, it is not possible for the Court to direct the State Government or the Development Authority to allot plots to the oustees at a reasonable cost. It was held to the following effect:
"17. Where there is a scheme, but it does not regulate the allotment price, it may be possible for the court to direct the State Government/Development Authority to allot plots to land- losers at a LPA No.2096 of 2011 & other connected cases 43 reasonable cost, and in special and extraordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored. If any land- loser has any grievance in regard to such scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot ask the court to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and demand allotment at cost price."
In respect of second question i.e. what is the meaning of the words "normal allotment rate", the Court found that as a matter of fact the land-loser has made an application in the year 1990 for allotment of plot. A direction was issued by the Court in the year 1992, but the HUDA delayed allotment to the appellants. Therefore, the rate for which plots were initially offered was ordered to be charged. The said question has been answered keeping in view the facts of the aforesaid case, wherein application was submitted by an oustee, but still plot was not allotted to him. The said judgment does not lay down that the VIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 5 'normal allotment rate' in all circumstances shall be the date when the sector is first floated for sale. As a matter of fact, the normal allotment rate would be the rate advertised by the HUDA in pursuance of which applications are invited from the general public and the oustees, in pursuance of which the plots are allotted."
Till now, the plots have not been allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, the condition that allotment shall be made at the current Collector rate is, in fact, in accordance with law as laid down in Sandeep's case (supra).
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (HARI PAL VERMA) 09.12.2014 JUDGE preeti/Vimal VIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh