Dila Singh vs State of Punjab

J.M. Tandon, J.

The State of Punjab acquired land in the revenue estate of village Mohali, including that of the petitioner, for Phase VI, for setting up Industrial Urban Estate vide award No. 264, dated 4th October, 1972. The petitioner was paid compensation for his acquired area as assessed by the authorities. In April, 1974, the Government formulated a policy for the figure development of urban estates in Punjab and the same is contained in memorandum No. 32833 UD74 dated 17th April, 1974 (P.1) addressed by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Local Government and Urban Development Department to the Director, Housing and Urban Development, Punjab. The relevant part of this policy reads:

"6. ELIGIBILITYIt has been decided to reserve the smaller sizes plots exclusively for the persons belonging to the lower income groups. The allotment of plots shall, therefore, be made on the basis of the following income criteria:

(i) Plots upto 100 Sq. Yards to be allotted to persons having a gross monthly income of Rs. 350/.

(ii) Plots upto 125 Sq. Yards to be allotted to persons having a gross monthly income of Rs. 550/.

(iii) Plots upto 150 Sq. Yards to be allotted to persons with a gross income of Rs. 750/.

(ii) Plots upto 200 Sq. Yards to be allotted to person having a gross monthly income of Rs. 1,000/.

RESERVATION POLICYIt has been decided to revise the existing policy of reservation as follows :

(i) Before any plots are allotted, all oustees, whose land has been acquired for the settingup of an estate shall be accommodated within the framework of the income criteria (prescribed) mentioned above. Further, all war windows will also be accommodated on cent per cent basis and plots allotted to them as per their requirements and social needs.

MODE OF PAYMENT(i) All allotments will be made on the basis of the payment system stated above.

Group I : All plots in this group i.e. 250 Sq. Yards and above would be sold on cash down basis, except in case of plots allotted to employees of the Punjab State Government and the Defence Forces, who shall pay the price of the plot in 4 equal instalments, including interest.

Group II : All plots in this group i.e. 200 Sq. Yards below shall be sold in deferred payment basis i.e. 4 equal instalments inclusive of interest......

DISPOSAL OF PENDING APPLICATIONSIt has been decided, that before any fresh applicants are considered for allotment of plots in any of the urban estates, the old applicants will be accommodated and given the chance of purchasing plots as per the revised system of payment.

Even among these, plots will be allotted to those applicants who had applied in response to advertisements of the Department and thereafter to those who had applied voluntarily. Director Housing will prepare detailed lists of all old applicants and then proceed to allot plots first to the applicants who have applied in response to the advertisements issued by the Department and thereafter to those who applied voluntarily.

All old applicants will be addressed through a selfexplanatory letter, briefly detailing the new policy and prescribing the manner in which the balance payments are expected to be paid by them. These letters will be addressed individually to all old applicants giving a date by which they should pay up the balance price in terms of the new policy. In case, any old applicant is not desirous of procuring a plot on the basis of the new policy, he would have the option to ask for a smaller plot or the refund of the amount deposited by him......''''

The petitioner applied for the allotment of residential plot measuring 250 Square Yards on 8th January, 1974, along with a bank draft of Rs. 711/. As provided in the policy decision, P.1, the petitioner was required to make the payment of the price of the plot on cash down basis. According to the petitioner, he was not in a position to pay the lumpsum price of the plot. According to him, he sent a letter on 11.11.1976, to the Department requesting that he may be allotted a plot measuring 200 Square Yards instead of 250 Square Yards. In the meantime, the petitioner had been written letters by the Department on 4th November, 1974, Ist June, 1976 and again on 5th October, 1976, intimating him to remit the balance price of the plot and also to furnish the requisite affidavit but without any response. The Department wrote another letter dated 10th February, 1978 to the petitioner asking him to remit the balance amount and to furnish the prescribed affidavit. The petitioner informed the Department vide letter dated 8th March, 1978 (R.5) that he may be allotted a plot measuring 200 Square Yards instead of 250 Square Yards. The petitioner also filed an affidavit that his income was Rs. 400/ per month but he did not furnish the affidavit to the effect that he or any member of his family had not previously obtained any residential plot in any urban estate. On 16th June, 1978, the petitioner sent a bank draft of Rs. 2190/ towards part payment of price of plot measuring 200 Square Yards. The Government revised the reservation policy which came into force on 2nd February, 1981 and is contained in Annexures R.6 and R.7. The petitioner was addressed a letter dated 17th August, 1981, by the Department to exercise his option in terms of the new policy for consideration of his case thereunder. The petitioner has not exercised the option so far.

The case of the petitioner is that he is an oustee inasmuch as his land had been acquired. He filed an application for the allotment of plot in January, 1974. He is entitled to the allotment of a plot in the terms of the policy decision of 1974 (P.1). His entitlement cannot be adversely affected by the new policy decision of the Government which has come into force with effect from 2nd February, 1981. The petitioner has consequently filed the present writ praying for a mandamus to be issued to the respondents to allot him a plot measuring 200 Square Yards in the Urban Estate Mohali and at the reserve price of Rs. 58/ per Square Yard which was fixed in 1974.

The relevant part of the new policy decision of the Government which has come into force with effect from 2nd February, 1981 (R. 6) reads :

ELIGIBILITY.The eligibility criteria will be as follows :

Size of the Plot

Gross annual income

100 Sq. Yds.

Upto Rs. 8000/

150 Sq. Yds.

Above Rs. 8000/ upto Rs. 12000/

200 Sq. Yds.

Above Rs. 12000/ upto Rs. 20000/

(V) OUSTEES.The oustees whose land has been acquired for setting up of the Urban Estates will be accommodated within the framework of the income criteria at the reserve price but the allotment of plots will be restricted to area measuring 200 Sq. Yds.

The policy regarding allotment of plots to the oustees in the urban estates was further revised and is contained in the memorandum dated 29th September, 1981 (R.7). The relevant part of this memorandum reads :

"2. The Government have decided to allot the plots to the oustees as under:

(i) The plot shall be allotted to an oustee in the urban estate for his bona fide residence. This will be subject to the condition that the oustee or his family which means wife and minor children, do not own another plot or house within an urban area.

(ii) No application from the oustees shall be received after a period of three years from the date of acquisition of land. The oustees shall be allotted plots on firstcomefirst served.

(iii) Individual oustees shall not be allotted plots measuring more than 200 Sq. Yards. The criteria for the allotment of plots upto 200 Sq. Yards shall be as under :

Land acquired.

Size of Plot

Gross annual income

(a) 1/2 acre to 3 acres

100 Sq. Yds.

Upto Rs. 8000/.

(b) Above 3 acre upto 5 acres.

150 Sq. Yds.

Above Rs. 8000/ upto Rs. 12000/.

(c) Above 5 acres.

200 Sq. Yds.

Above Rs. 12000/ upto Rs. 20,000/.

(iv) 10% of each of the plots measuring 200 Square Yards and less shall be reserved for allotment to the oustees. If the number of applications of the oustees is less, the remaining plots reserved for oustees shall be allotted as per policy.

(v) .....................

(vi) The other conditions for the allotment shall be the same as in the case of general public except that the allottees shall not be allowed to sell the plot or building constructed thereon before the lapse of 10 years........"

It will be seen that an oustee who may be entitled to the allotment of a plot under the 1974 policy decision, may be rendered ineligible or eligible for the allotment of a plot of similar size under the revised policy contained in memorandums R. 6 and R.7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner being an oustee was entitled to the allotment of a plot under 1974 policy decision whereunder no time limit is prescribed for an oustee to seek allotment of a plot. The petitioner, however, had applied for the allotment of a plot in January, 1974 whereas the policy decision regarding the oustees had been taken in April, 1974. The petitioner sought the reduction of the size of the plot from the 250 Square Yards to 200 Square Yards in November, 1976. His application for allotment of a plot had been kept pending by the authorities without any justification. The Government could not revise the reservation policy visavis the oustees to their disadvantage in 1981. The new policy decision regarding the oustees therefore, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, who continues to be entitled to the allotment of a plot under the policy decision of 1974.

Rule 3 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965, reads :

"The sites in an urban estate shall be sold by the State Government or by such authority as the State Government may appoint in this behalf by auction or allotment. For the purpose of proper planning and development of the urban estates, sites may be reserved for groups of individuals or for persons practicising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business."

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 a decision was taken in 1974. In Surjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1979 P.L.R. 413, it was held that 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. In Civil Writ Petition 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 this 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 954 of 1981, Devinder Singh Chadha and another v. 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 that 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.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Single Bench decision in C.W.P. No. 4383 of 1979, Gurbax Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, decided on 17th September, 1980, wherein the objection raised on behalf of the State that no more plot was available for allotment to an oustee was not sustained. The ratio of this authority is obviously not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration for the reason that the scope of the application of the new policy formulated in 1981 visavis the oustees like the petitioner was not considered.

It has been clearly held in the authorities mentioned above, that the applicants for allotment of plots including the oustees have no vested right for the allotment of a plot. The only right vested in them is the consideration of their applications. This consideration does not bar the Government to revise the policy decision already taken. The consideration shall be within the framework of the policy in vogue. The authorities are, therefore, bound to consider the application of an applicant in terms of the policy decision which is in vogue at the time of its consideration.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case of an oustee in the matter of allotment of plot at the reserve price is not at par with that of an ordinary applicant with the result that the right of an ordinary applicant may be adversely affected by the revised policy decision but not that of the oustee. I am not impressed by this contention. The land of an oustee has been acquired. He has been paid compensation in this background, his case in the matter of allotment of plot at the reserve price is at par with that of another nonoustee applicant. This apart, an oustee will be entitled to the allotment of a plot if the policy decision which is in vogue allows it. The petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a plot according to 1974 policy decision. His case could not be finalised till the new policy decision was taken by the Government in 1981. It may be added that it was on account of noncooperation on the part of the petitioner that his case could not be finalised earlier. According to the petitioner he had sent his option for reduction of the size of the plot from 250 Square Yards to 200 Square Yards in November, 1976. The respondents had admitted that there is an entry in the relevant register regarding the receipt of a letter from the petitioner in November, 1976 but that letter is not traceable. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner gave his option along with the requisite payment in 1978 for reduction of the size of the plot from 250 Square Yards to 200 Square Yards to enable him to pay the price thereof in instalments. Thereafter, the petitioner did not furnish the requisite affidavit. In the meantime, the new policy came into force. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot justifiably claim the consideration of his application under the policy decision of 1974.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government had given out in 1974 that all the oustees will be allotted plots at the reserve price. The Government now cannot be allowed to modify this policy to the detriment of the oustees. In other words, the Government is estopped from doing so by the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel. The contention is without merit. It has been held in Madan Lal and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1980 P.L.R. 409, that the application inviting tenders cannot possibly be construed any higher than an invitation for offers on behalf of the respondents with regard to large number of plots carved out in the Bhatinda Urban Estate. In response thereto, the petitioner, can at best have made an offer by complying with the said invitation. That would not by itself create either a promise or contract because it is well settled that only an acceptance in categorical and unequivocal terms can lead to a binding or an enforceable promise. The cardinal thing, however, on which the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel rests in that on the basis of the alleged promise, the premise must have necessarily acted thereon. The ratio of this case is applicable to the instant case. The petitioner cannot justifiably invoke the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel merely on account of having applied for the allotment of a residential plot at the reserve price.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that assuming that the Government could revise their policy decision in 1981, it could only do so for good reasons and not otherwise. The argument proceeds that no foundation has been laid for revising earlier policy decision which is beneficial to the oustees. The contention is without force. Under the revised policy decision the quota of allotment of plots to oustees has been restricted to 10% whereas under the old policy decision of 1974, all oustees were to be allotted plots at the reserve price. The net result of the revised policy decision in the matter of limiting the quota of plots for the oustees is that more plots will now be disputed of by public auction which all bring more money to the State exchequer for public use. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the earlier policy decision has been revised without any good justification.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the nonallotment of a plot to the petitioner has resulted in discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as many other oustees similarly situated have been allotted plots. I am not impressed by this contention. The case of the oustees who have been allotted plots were disposed of under the old policy whereas the case of the petitioner is liable to be decided in terms of the new policy decision. The question of hostile discrimination violative of the Constitution, therefore, does not arise.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner accepted the compensation awarded to him by the authorities because of the prospects of his getting a residential plot at the reserve price. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the allotment of a plot at the reserve price in terms of the policy decision of 1974. This contention is also without force. The petitioner was paid full compensation as assessed by the authorities for his acquired land. He did not legally give up his right for further compensation in consideration of his securing the allotment of residential plot at the reserve price. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim the allotment of plot at the reserve price in terms of the policy decision of 1974, on this ground as well.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.