Estate Officer, Urban Estate Punjab and Another vs Karnail Singh and Another

R.P. Sethi and S.S. Sudharkar, JJ.—Respondent-Karnail Singh filed a petition in this Court with the prayer for quashing of decisions Annexures P/7 and P/10 and issuance of a direction to respondents to allot him a 500 sq. yards plot in Phase XI (Sector 65), Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard. The petitioner had relied upon the order of the Government, Annexure P/1, by which the Government had approved rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard for S.A.S. Nagar, Sector 65. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondent on various grounds.

The learned single Judge after relying upon the judgments of this Court in D.S. Laungia and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, and Phula Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 P.L.J. 699 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to allot the petitioner a plot of 500 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants respondents that the judgment of the learned single judge impugned in this appeal had ignored the Division Bench judgment delivered in 1993 C.W.P 133 decided on 31.5.1994. It is further contended that as the petitioner was in fact allotted a plot in the year 1990, he could not have preferred his claim on the basis of the rates fixed in the year 1980. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants and are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the allotment of a plot at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard as admittedly the petitioner had not been allotted any plot when the aforesaid rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. yard was fixed. A perusal of Annexure P/7 would reveal that plot No. 2384 measuring 500 sq. yard in Sector 65, Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar was allotted to the petitioner on the provisional price of Rs. 1,55,000/-, which was subject to be increase regarding which intimation was to be given to the petitioner after the same had been approved by the Government. Nothing has been placed on record to show the circumstances under which the provisional price fixed vide Annexure P/10 has been changed by the Government. The appellants intimated the enhanced price of Rs. 5,20,000/- and the respondent-writ petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount after adjustment of Rs. 38,750/- already paid by him. A perusal of Annexure P/10 clearly shows that no reason has been assigned or nothing is mentioned therein to show as to under what circumstances the price was enhanced. Even though the appellants were having the right to enhance the price, yet the same could be done only on the basis of some material in accordance with the rules and the circumstances justifying the acceleration of the prices. The failure on the part of the appellants to justify the circumstances of the enhancement did not cast an obligation upon the respondent-allottee to make further payment as demanded by Annexure P/10. The prayer of the allottee for quashing of Annexure P/10 was justified but there did not exist circumstances justifying the payment of the price of plot at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard as has been done by the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned in this appeal.

Under these circumstances, the appeal is partly accepted by modifying the judgment impugned and holding that Annexure P/10 shall be deemed to have been quashed so far as the right of the respondent-allottee is concerned and he shall be entitled to a plot of 500 square yard on payment of price fixed vide Annexure P/7. The balance amount shall be paid within two months along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. If the balance amount is not paid within the aforesaid period of two months, the rate of interest in that eventuality would be 18 per cent per annum.