Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing ... vs Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal, N.C. Sita Ram ... on 20 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)119PLR824
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The learned Single Judge has accepted the writ petition and directed the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') and the market Committee, Ambala City "to allot one shop-cum-residence plot" to each writ petitioners on reserved price in the new grain market, Ambala City. Aggrieved by these directions, the Board and the Market Committee have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. A few facts may be noticed:-
The old Anaj Mandi had been notified as a market yard under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. In the year 1966, a new market yard was notified and the old market yard was denotified. The new market yard was developed by the Colonisation Department. After development of the area, the plots were sold by the Colonisation Department through open auction. The two writ petitioners (who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal) filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution pointing out that the Market Committee had issued a public notice for the sale of plot Nos. 92 and 93 by open auction which was fixed for May 27,1991. They submitted that according to the policy decision, 45 per cent plots had to be allotted by draw of lots to the old licensees at reserved price. Besides this 5 per cent plots had to be reserved for Harijans. Only the remaining 50 per cent plots could be sold by open auction. It was further averred that there were 22 other plots which also could be allotted/sold in accordance with the policy decision of the Board. It was prayed that the notice for sale of the two plots by open auction be quashed and that the Board/Market Committee should allot a plot to each one of them.
3. The claim made by the writ petitioners was controverted. It was pleaded that the plots had been developed by the Colonisation Department. All the developed plots except 2 had been sold by the Colonisation Department in the open auction. At the time of the transfer of the new Grain Market to the Board/Market Committee, only 2 plots were available. These were ordered to be sold by open auction. It was further stated that the remaining 22 plots, which had been newly created were also to be sold by open auction.
4. As already noticed, the learned Single Judge accepted the claim of the writ petitioners and directed the present appellants to allot the 2 plots to respondents 1 and 2.
5. Mr. Ravi Kapur, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the policy instructions regarding reservation of plots in the new grain market for the old licensees were not attracted in the present case. According to the learned counsel, the plots had been developed and sold by the Colonisation Department. Since, neither the Board nor the Market Committee had sold any of the plots, the instructions regarding reservation were not applicable. Still further, it has also been contended that the Board is not following any policy of reservation now. Thus, no relief can be granted to any of the old licensees (including respondents 1 and 2).
6. The claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.
7. Admittedly, the Board had taken a decision and issued consolidated instructions in the year 1980. It had been provided that 50 per cent of the available plots (including those reserved for Harijans) would be allotted at the reserved price. Respondents 1 and 2 were old licensees. They were entitled to be considered for the allotment of plots in the new grain market at the reserved price. This was not done. The mere fact that the plots had been developed by the Colonisation Department did not have the effect of obliterating the instructions/decisions of the Board to reserve plots for the old licensees. Thus, it appears that in accordance with the decision of the Board, 50 per cent of the plots (including 5 per cent reserved for Harijans) had to be allotted to the old licensees at the reserved price. The appellants had failed to do this. Consequently, they had violated the instructions issued by the Board. As such, the grievances made on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that out of the remaining plots, allotment be made in accordance with the Board's instructions was well-founded. To this extent, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable.
8. It may also be added that the policy of reservation was continued even by subsequent decisions of the Board, which were circulated through letters dated December 15, 1987 and October 23, 1990, copies of which are on record as Annexure P-2 and P-3.
9. In this situation, it is clear that the appellant No. 1 had reiterated the earlier instructions. Thus, the appellants were bound to make reservation while selling the plots. The view taken by the learned Judge is consequently affirmed. However, we deem it appropriate to clarify that while considering the claim of respondents 1 and 2 the appellants shall also consider the claim of all other eligible old licensees. All persons, who are similarly situated, shall be treated alike. Their names shall be included in the list of eligible persons for the purpose of draw of lots and thereafter whosoever is lucky shall be allotted the plots that are reserved. Similar procedure shall also be followed in respect of 5 per cent plots which are reserved for the members of the Harijan community. It may further be clarified that since the allotments made in the year 1986 by the Colonisation Department through open auction were not challenged by any one, these would remain un-affected. The reservation of 45 per cent shall be confined only to the 22 plots that are now stated to be available.
10. The directions given by the learned Single Judge are, thus, modified to the extent that the claims of various eligible persons, viz. old licensees, shall be considered. In all other respects, the decision of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.