Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab

GURCHARAN Singh and Mohinder Singh who instituted Complaint Nos. 667 of 1994 and 668 of 1994 respectively were dismissed by the District Forum-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 15.1.1999. Aggrieved against it the two allottees namely GURCHARAN Singh and Mohinder Singh have preferred the present two appeals bearing Nos. 33 and 32 of 1999 and shall be disposed of by this judgment.

BRIEFLY Gurcharan Singh was allotted Booth No. 79, Phase-I, Urban Estate at Phagwara on 16.12.1986 in response to the deposit of Rs. 1,417.50 which was 25% of the price. The total price was Rs. 5,670/-. The letter of allotment is dated 21.1.1987 Annexure P-2. There was another letter extending the period of deposit which is dated 30.10.1991 and is Annexure P-3. On behalf of the respondents there was a preliminary objection that since dispute related to immovable property, it is not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. There was another plea that since the plot was a commercial one the dispute could not be considered by the District Forum. The appellant was not entitled to allotment because he failed to deposit 25% of the price within seven days. The letters issued by the Estate Officer in the year 1991 regarding extension of period for depositing 25% of the price was held to be void and it was not considered sufficient for allotment of the site in question.

The specific plea that the complainant is a Sikh migrant has been admitted clearly on page 3 of the reply. Plot No. 79 was allotted to Gurcharan Singh, s/o Shri Mehar Singh of Phagwara vide letter No. B-79.87/204 dated 21.1.1987 and the allottee was required to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,417.50 within one week. However, he could not deposit it within the prescribed time on account of paucity of funds. A letter dated 30.10.1991 Annexure P-3 was issued by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Jallandhar to the appellant and a period of 15 days was granted for depositing the aforesaid sum and thereafter again a period of 15 days was granted and the required sum was deposited through Bank draft No. PWN-356139 dated 11.11.1991 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Phagwara. Since the aforesaid sum was deposited within 15 days of the demand made on 30.10.1991, Annexure P3, the respondents were not justified to convey on 18.1.1994, Annexure R-2 that the Punjab Government letter dated 20.12.1989 extending the period for depositing the 25% of the price was illegal.

THE preliminary objection of jurisdiction in respect of a commercial site has been negatived and set at rest by the Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1986-95 Consumer 278 (NS). On behalf of respondent it has been stressed that since Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority came into existence with effect froml.7.1995, the 25% of price received late by the State Government could not be considered valid and the denial of possession to the appellant in respect of the booth in question could not be said to be unjustified. The appellant was a bona fide allottee. The short delay in making the deposit of the instalment in such cases and its subsequent acceptance by the Estate Officer is considered lawful. Besides this it shall be useful to refer to Clause (E) of the notification issued by the Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development bearing No. 3/40/90-4HGI/6153 dated 29.4.1991 and it is reproduced as under : (E) "All existing properties acquired by the State Government for the purpose of setting up and developing Urban Estates shall continue to be regulated by the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964. All rights which have accrued to allottees or plot holders under the Act ibid shall continue to be in force and shall not be affected in any way whatsoever."

A perusal thereof shows that the allotment, delivery of possession, collection of instalments and other formalities were to continue. This process usually takes time. The booth was not allotted to any other person during this period. The main object of allotting these small booths in Punjab was to provide a source of livelihood to the migrant. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority was not expected to undo or leave the policy of the State Government un-implemented. The denial of booth to a bona fide allottee amounts to deficiency. The conclusion is that the appeal succeeds and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the allotment in favour of the appellant be acted upon. The outstanding part of the price shall be deposited by the appellant within three months. Similarly connected Appeal No. 32 of 1999 preferred by Mohinder Singh, also stands accepted and allotment of site bearing SCF No. 16, Phase-I in Urban Estate, Phagwara, is hereby affirmed and he shall also deposit the residual price within the period mentioned above. The parties are left to bear their own costs in both the appeals. Appeals accepted.