BHEL-Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. vs The Goindwal Industrial and Investment Corporation

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to an communication dated 1.3.1993 (Annexure P-23), wherein the respondent-Corporation has fixed the price of residential plot @ Rs. 350 per square yards. It is also stipulated therein that if earnest money is not received in terms of the revised rates, it will be presumed that the petitioner is not interested to have plots and earnest money already received will be refunded.

The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. On the other hand, respondent is an agency and instrumentality of the State Government of Punjab. The petitioner sought allotment of a piece of land for its members. The respondent-Corporation communicated on 24.12.1986 (Annexure P-9) that it has been decided to allot the developed residential plots to the petitioner Society @ Rs. 66.66 per square yard. Such offer was accepted by the petitioner on 12.2.1987 (Annexure P-11) proposing the requirement of 27 plots i.e. 10 plots of 500 square yards; 12 plots of 250 square yards and 10 plots of 200 square yards. The Corporation called upon the petitioner to submit application forms along with earnest money. But the petitioner gave additional requirement of 20 plots i.e. 2 plots of 500 square yards; 12 plots of 250 square yards and 6 plots of 200 square yards. Subsequently on 11.7.1987 (Annexure P-17), the petitioner submitted a list of members along with earnest money i.e. by adding 3 plots of 500 square yard; 7 plots of 250 square yards and 1 plot of 200 square yards. On 6.9.1988, the petitioner-Society intimated that about 29 members of the Society have deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs. 42,000/- and that plots be allotted to them.

Apart from the grievance regarding non allotment of plots to 29 members, the grievance was also in respect of the claim of Rs. 350/- per square yard as the rate charged instead of Rs. 66.66%. It is staid to be a unilateral decision.

In reply, on behalf of the respondents, it is averred that 29 plots were allotted at a concessional rate of Rs. 66.66 per square yard. 25% rebate was allowed on this rate with the condition that the Society will start construction within three months. Since, the construction was not started and members of the Society failed to adhere to the schedule for raising construction, the Board of Directors have decided to charge Rs. 350/- per square yard after considering the development charges and the amount of compensation paid towards acquired land. It is also averred that it was not possible to accommodate large number of individuals as per the list sent by the Society. The land was offered to the petitioner for raising multi storied flats near GIICO nursery but was not accepted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present petition. There is no clear averments in respect of the applications submitted and plots allotted. But it appears that only 29 plots were allotted and in respect of others, some amount of earnest money was deposited but plots have not been allotted.

Now on merits, we find that the respondent-Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it could not act arbitrarily so as to allot plot merely on submission of application forms on the request of the petitioner-Society. No public notice was issued inviting applications from the Societies or even individuals. The plots were allotted to the members of the petitioner-Society without complying with the principles of disposal of public property.

Still further 29 members of the petitioner-Society have been allotted plots. The petitioners have been increasing its requirements firstly from 20 to 27 i.e. 47 and then additional requirements. Since, the limited land was available, plots have been allotted to some of the members of the society, whereas the other members who have submitted earnest money do not get any right to seek allotment only on submission of earnest money.

A Full Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, held that by filing an application, 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 Court observed as under:-

........... 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 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 adoption of the principle of ''first come fir 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 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In another Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17397 of 2010, Rajinder Kumar Rawal and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 24.4.2012, in which one of us was member (Hemant Gupta J.) examined other judgments of the Supreme Court and observed as under:-

"The Hon''ble Supreme Court Jasbir Singh Chhabra and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, approved the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court and held that by making an application pursuant to the advertisement and on being declared successful in the draw of lots, no promise is made out.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Another Vs. Manju Jain and Others, allowed an appeal, wherein the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled for failure to deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. The Hon''ble Court held that mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. It was held to the following effect:-

"21. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment."

In the aforesaid case, the Hon''ble Court allowed the appeal while holding that the writ petitioner has not sent the acceptance letter within the time granted in the letter of allotment.

In view of the above discussion, we find that no right of the petitioner(s) has been infringed when the authorities decided not to proceed with the allotment of plots, but to conduct public auction of such plots".

In view of the discussion above, we find that no right accrues to the petitioner society to seek allotments of plots merely on deposit of the earnest money.

In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present petition.

Dismissed.