Dev Dutt Kaushik and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr.

A.L. Bahri, J.

Dev Dutt Kaushik and 22 others, residents of village Mataur and Lambe, tehsil Kharar, district Ropar, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing decision of the Government contained in Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 and for issuing necessary directions to allot residential plots to the petitioners. Land of the petitioner in village Mataur and Lambe, tehsil Kharar, was acquired for development of Urban Estate of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali). As per policy decision of the Government contained in letter dated April 17, 1974, all the landowners whose land was acquired were to be allotted plots before allotment of such plots to others. The petitioners and several others applied for allotment of plots measuring 8 marlas each whereas Prem Chand petitioner applied for allotment of plot measuring 6 marlas. At that time the tentative market value of the plot was fixed at the rate of Rs. 58/ per square yard and the petitioners were required to deposit 25 per cent of the price of the plot which was done. Subsequently, the price of the plots was raised to Rs. 85/ per square yard and thus petitioners were asked to cover up the deficiency. The total amount paid by the petitioners with their registration numbers and the area required is given in the writ petition. In spite of the fact that the money deposited remained with the State, plots were not allotted. The amount of cheques deposited by petitioners No. 9 to 14 was wrongly returned after about a year on the ground that only one plot could be allotted to them jointly in view of the revised policy of the Government. Several times the respondents were approached for allotment of plots to the petitioners. However, the petitioners received letters, one of them being Annexure P. 1, wherein it was indicated that the oustees (persons like the petitioners) were not to be allotted plots more than 200 square yards each and for the same the criteria adopted was as follows :

Land acquired

Size of plot

Gross annual income

(a) 1/2 acres to 3 acres

100 sq. yards

Upto Rs. 8,000/

(b) Above 3 acres upto 5 acres

150 sq. yards

Above Rs. 8,000/ upto Rs. 12,000/

(c) Above 5 acres

200 sq. yards.

Above Rs. 12,000/ upto Rs. 20,000/

In this letter, it was also provided in clause (5) that where the land acquired was owned jointly, all the oustees would be entitled jointly to one plot only. The rate of land to be allotted was fixed at Rs. 85/ per square yard. The oustees were given option to accept the same by October 20, 1981. 25 per cent of the price of the plot was required to be deposited. The petitioners maintained that many persons of two villages referred to above and other villages namely Mohali, Madanpur, Kumbra and Sihali Majra, whose land was acquired for Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Urban Estate, were allotted plots even if their acquired area was less than one half of an acre, particulars of some of them were given in the writ petition. It was also maintained that even cosharers were allotted separate residential plots. At the time of acquisition of their land, a promise was made to the petitioners that they would be allotted plots. In this context, reference was made to a letter of the Deputy Secretary, Local Government and Urban Development, addressed to the Director, Housing and Urban Development, dated September 12, 1980 to go on with the acquisition of the land and further mentioning that commercial as well as residential plots should be provided to oustees. Several persons of village Kumbra and Jagatpura, whose land was also acquired earlier but were not allotted plots, moved civil writ petitions in the High Court, one of them being C.W.P. No. 617 of 1981 decided by P.C. Jain and Surinder Singh, JJ. on September 30, 1981. It was conceded therein on behalf of the respondents that oustees would be given their plots. Afterwards, C.W.P. No. 4837 of 1981 was also allowed and relief granted. The petitioners were thus entitled to the allotment of plots. They were being denied the equal treatment and equal protection of law and were being discriminated against. These decisions, as contained in Annexures P. 1 and P. 2, were challenged in the writ petition on several grounds.

On behalf of the respondents written statement was filed by Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab. In the preliminary objections, it was stated that policy of 1981, as framed by the Government was under challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4528 of 1980 (Dila Singh v. State of Pb., 1984 R.R.R. 523) and seventeen other writ petitions. The said writ petition of Dila Singh was dismissed on May 31, 1983 (1983 PLJ 417). Letters Patent Appeal No. 1032 of 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 521 of 1982 (Dev Raj v. State of Punjab) was also dismissed by this Court on December 12, 1983. The State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petition No. 6458 of 1982, in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated May, 1982 passed in C.W.P. No. 4837 of 1981. The Supreme Court stayed operation of the judgment of this Court. Thus, further allotment of plots was not made. The Government could revise the policy regarding disposal of plots as held by this Court in certain decisions. The petitioners had no legally enforceable right as there was no commitments or promises made by the State. Earnest money was returned to petitioners Nos. 10 to 22, i.e. Amar Singh, Shiv Singh and Chaman Lal, at their request. The writ petition qua them was liable to be dismissed as infructuous. On merits, it was alleged that the allotment policy was revised in 1981 and the petitioners and others were asked to give options. They were asked to deposit 25 per cent price of the plots. No person could claim as a matter of right allotment of plot unless allotment is made. Policy of 1981 was revised in 1983 and the case of the petitioners for allotment of plots would be considered under the prevalent policy. The Government eliminated the clause of income in the case of the oustees in the 1983 revised policy. Thus, the petitioners could be considered for allotment on the basis of their area of land acquired. With respect to the allotment of plots already made, it was stated that those persons were allotted plot as their applications were received prior to the petitioners. Thus, there was no discrimination. It was admitted that allotment letters were issued to five of the petitioners and they were asked to complete the requisite formalities under the then allotment policy. Only two out of them completed the formalities. Allotment did not attain finalisation as far as the other three were concerned. It was stated that the plots had been kept reserved for the petitioners and would be allotted as per orders of the Court. The cases of the petitioners for allotment of plots would be considered as per prevalent policy.

Learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following points :

(i) That those of the petitioners who applied for allotment of plots under 1974 policy decision are entitled to the allotment of plots as they had deposited the requisite amount under the policy of 1974.

(ii) That there was discrimination in not allotting plots to the petitioners when other applicants were allotted plots under 1974 policy. Under the new policy, some of the petitioners may not be entitled to ask for the allotment of plots on the ground of area of their land acquired.

(iii) That at the time of acquisition of land, the State Government made a promise to allot plots to all the landowners. The State Govt. cannot be go back from the said promise in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 S.C. 718 and M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC. 621.

(iv) That the State Government has changed the policy regarding allotment of plots during pendency of the petition and the amended policy will not govern the case.

These points, as noticed above, were raised in the previous Civil Writ Petition No. 4528 of 1980 (Dila Singh v. State of Punjab and another) decided on May 31, 1983 (1983 PLJ 417) by J.M. Tandon, J. The provisions of 1974 policy and 1981 were noticed and it was observed as under :

"The State Government is competent to take a policy decision in the matter of allotment of plots to the oustees under rule 3 reproduced above. Such decision was taken in 1974. In Surjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1979 PLR 413 (1978 PLJ 425 FB) it was held that by filing an application in accordance with the 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. In CWP No. 1291 of 1981 (Nakshtar Lal Goyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 23rd April, 1981 (D.B.) it was held that merely the fact that some of the applicants got allotments earlier would not be a bar in the way of the Government to revise its policy of allotment. If unfortunately such a policy affects some persons whose applications for allotment remain unsatisfied then the revised policy cannot be struck down on the ground that it would adversely affect the claim of the persons who had also applied earlier but were not able to get the allotment of the plots in their favour. In CWP No. 954 of 1981 (Devinder Singh Chandha and another v. The State of Punjab and others), decided on 31st March, 1981 (D.B.), it was held that by merely making an application no right has accrued to the petitioners and on the basis of the application they cannot claim that they are entitled to the allotment of a plot on the basis of the old policy. The Government is well within its right to revise the policy."

With regard to the alleged promise made at the time of acquiring land for allotment of plots, it was observed that the petitioners could not justifiably invoke equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel merely on account of having applied for the allotment of residential plots at the reserve price. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Madan Lal and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1980 PLR 409. It was held that Government for good reasons revised policy of allotment of plots. The aforesaid decision fully applies to the case in hand. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Union of India and others v. M/s. Anglo Agencies etc., AIR 1968 S.C. 718, that the State cannot go back from its promise to allot plots cannot be accepted. Before the Supreme Court, the case related to Import and Export Control Act. Under the Export Promotion Scheme for woollen textiles and woollen goods, on the export certain concessions were to be allowed. Since the appellants in that case had exported goods under the Scheme, they could not be denied the benefit accruing under the Scheme. The ration of the decision is not attracted to the case in hand. The State Government acquired the land of the petitioners on payment of full sale price as permissible under the Land Acquisition Act. It was merely a concession that a policy was framed to rehabilitate those landowners whose land was acquired by allotment of plots. By merely depositing 25 per cent of the sale consideration no right had vested in the petitioners to claim allotment of plots under any law. On the same grounds, the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 S.C. 621, is not attracted to the case in hand. Under the alleged promise made by the State, the position of the petitioners was not in any manner changed by merely applying for the allotment of plots on deposit of 25 per cent of the sale price, as held in the case of Dila Singh referred to above. The mere fact that the policy of allotment of plots was revised during pendency of the writ petition will be or no consequence.

The petitioners cannot get any benefit from the decision of this Court in CWP No. 617 of 1981 (Charan Singh v. State of Punjab and another) decided on September 30, 1981, which order was passed on the concession of the respondents that the petitioners in that case were to be allotted plots of 100 square yards each and the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench. In the present case also, in the written statement it is mentioned that under the prevalent policy, plots would be allotted to the oustees. The plots were not allotted as the matter was pending in the Supreme Court.

For the reasons recorded above, only direction that needs to be issued in this petition is that under the revised policy, the plots be allotted to the petitioners except petitioners Nos. 20, 21 and 22 to whom earnest money has already been refunded at their own request and that under the revised policy only one plot would be allotted to the joint owners, petitioners No. 9 to 14, as is the case of the respondents. So ordered. In case some of the petitioners are now eligible under the revised policy for allotment of the plots although they were eligible under 1974 policy, If plots have not so far been allotted to them, they will not be entitled to allotment under the new policy. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order ass to costs.