Housing Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board vs Bal Raj Kapuria (Died) through his LR's and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Is the action of the Housing Development Board, Punjab in demanding enhanced price and not allotting the plots to

the applicants at the rate prevalent on May 12, 1981 illegal and arbitrary? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Letters

Patent Appeal and the three writ petitions which have been listed for hearing together. The facts as borne out from the record of the L.P.A. may be

briefly noticed.

The appellant-Board issued an advertisement in the year 1969 inviting applications for allotment of plots. The respondents (Bal Raj Kapuria and

others) as also the writ petitioners in the three connected cases submitted their applications in August, 1969. The tentative price fixed by the Board

at that time was Rs. 35/- per square yard. The applicants were required to deposit 10% of the sale price alongwith the applications. Alongwith, all

the applicants who are parties in these four cases had submitted their applications and deposited the requisite amount. The applications remained

pending. In the year 1974, the price was enhanced to Rs. 58/-per square yard. Still further, on May 12, 1981, the price was raised to Rs. 85/- per

square yard. The applicants were asked to give their options for allotment of plots at the revised priced of Rs. 85/- per square yard. All the

applicants, who are parties in these cases accepted the offer and gave their written option to accept allotment at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square

yard. Copies of the letters by which options were exercised by the applicants in the letters patent appeal are at annexure R-2 to R-7 on the record

of this case. Not only that. They even deposited the additional amount of money which was asked for by the appellant Board. On the completion

of formalities the plots were earmarked for the applicants. However, no order of allotment were issued. It was only in the year 1989 that letters of

allotment were actually issued to the different applicants. The price of the land as mentioned in the letters of allotment was Rs. 232.50 per square

yard. The applicants accepted the offer but objected to the raise in price. When they did not succeed they approached this Court through Civil

Writ Petition No. 12272 of 1990. While this writ petition was pending, the other applicants who had either been allotted plots at the higher price

or to whom the letter of allotment was not issued filed the three writ petitions viz. C.W.P. Nos. 9567, 9574 and 9578 of 1992.

The Civil Writ Petition No. 12272 of 1990 was heard by a learned Single Judge. Vide judgment dated December 10, 1992, the writ petition

was allowed. It was held that the applicants are entitled to the allotment of the plots at the rate of Rs. 58/- per square yard as fixed in the year

1974 and that the Board was not entitled to claim a higher price. It is to challenge this judgment that the Board has filed the present appeal while

the petitioners in the other cases claim that they should be allotted plots and allowed to pay the price which are prevalent in the year 1974.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the appellant-Board it has been contended that the plots have been allotted at the

tentative price of Rs. 232.50 per square yard in the year 1989. This was the rate prevalent at that time. The applicants had accepted the offer.

They have got the plots. In respect of the claim made in the writ petitions it has been contended that no person had any right to claim allotment

merely by the submission of an application. The Board had the authority to determine the price and allot the plots at such rate as it considered

appropriate. On these premises it has been contended that the appeal should be allowed and that the writ petitions be dismissed. The claim made

on behalf of the Board has been controverted by the learned counsel for the applicants.

Admittedly, the applicants in all these cases had approached the Board for allotment of plots almost three decades back in the year 1969. It is

also the admitted position that each one of them had deposited 10% of the sale price alongwith the application in accordance with the demand

made by the Board. Still further when the price was revised in the year 1981 the Board had called upon the applicants to give their willingness for

the allotment of plots at the revised rates. Each one of the applicants who are parties in these cases had exercised the option and deposited the

additional amount. They had exercised the option in writing. Still further, it has not been disputed on behalf of the Board that the plots had been

earmarked for each one of the applicants who are parties in these cases. This position has been factually conceded by the learned counsel

appearing for the Board. Inspite of having earmarked the plots, the letters of allotment were not issued till the year 1989 when the enhanced price

was demanded. Why did the Board not decide the applications submitted by the various persons in the year 1969? Why did the Board not allot

plots inspite of having taken a decision in that behalf on its file and having earmarked the plots in respect of each one of the applicants? Why did

the Board fail to make allotment even after the applicants had exercised their option to accept the allotment at the revised rate of Rs. 85/- per

square yard in the year 1981? There is no answer either in the pleadings or at the stage of arguments. The allotments were made to some of the

applicants after a lapse of almost 20 years in the year 1989. During this interregnum the Board kept the money deposited by the applicants. They

kept giving them hopes of allotment. It even took a decision and earmarked the plots with regard to each one of the applicants. Inspite of that the

Board failed to issue the formal letters of allotment. To say the least, the action was arbitrary and we are not surprised that the learned Single Judge

had taken the view that the price demanded by the Board was excessive.

There is another aspect of the matter. Bachan Singh Thind and another person had approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 7964

of 1991. They prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Board to allot a 10 marla plot. On behalf of the petitioners it was

contended that they were entitled to the allotment of plots at the rate which was prevalent in the year 1976 when the plots had been earmarked for

allotment to them. It was pointed out that the prevalent rate was Rs. 58/- per square yard. The claim was contested on behalf of the Board. The

matter was considered by a Division Bench. It was noticed that Smt. Joginder Kaur had already been granted a similar relief in civil Writ Petition

No. 12057 of 1989 decided on December 19, 1991. It was further observed that ""the petitioners would be entitled to allotment of plots at the

price which was prevalent in 1976 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 58/- per square yard."" The writ petition was, accordingly, allowed with costs vide

judgment dated February 17, 1992. The State of Punjab filed a petition for Special Leave in the Supreme Court. The leave was granted. Civil

Appeal No. 5065 of 1993 was considered by a Bench presided over by Hon''ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi, (as his Lordship then was). The

order of the Division Bench was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

It has been pointed out on behalf of the applicants that the facts of the present cases are identical to those of Bachan Singh Thind''s case. This

factual position has not been disputed. That being so, it would be unjust and inequitable to treat the applicants in the present cases differently from

those in Joginder Kaur''s or Bachan Singh Thind''s case. This is all the more so in view of the fact that the judgment in Bachan Singh Thind''s case

has the imprimatur of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The two cases being in complete parimateria, no ground for denying the relief in the

present cases is made out.

On behalf of the Board reliance has been placed on the decision in Didar Singh v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority etc., Civil

Writ Petition No. 14246 of 1997, wherein the petitioner had challenged the demand of ""enhanced price.......in respect of plot No. 2684, phase 69,

Urban Estate, Mohali ...."". It was found by the Bench that the petitioner had accepted the conditions contained in the letter of allotment and

deposited the earnest money. Later on, he had also deposited an amount of Rs. 6.40 lacs which constituted the price of the plot. However, till that

time the plot had not been allotted to him. The allotment letter was issued for the first time on August 29, 1997, and it was in terms thereof that the

petitioner was called upon to pay the tentative price of Rs. 10 lacs. Thus, their Lordships came to the conclusion that ""it cannot be said that the

respondents have enhanced the price of the plot already allotted to the petitioner"". In the present cases such a controversy does not arise.

In view of the above, the claim of the Board that it is entitled to a price of Rs. 232.50 per square yard cannot be sustained. However, we find it

equally difficult to upheld the claim of the present applicants that the price should be fixed at Rs. 58/- per square yard. Admittedly, an offer had

been made to them in May, 1981 for allotment of plots at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard. This offer had been unequivocally accepted by all

of them. Thus, they are not entitled to claim that the allotment be made at a rate lower than Rs. 85/- per square yard. Resultantly, the Letter Patent

Appeal is allowed to the extent that the applicants shall be liable to pay the price at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square instead of the rate of Rs. 58/-

per square yard as fixed by the learned single judge.

Similarly, the claims of the writ petitioners for payment of price and allotment shall be considered by the authority in accordance with the

decision of the Division Bench in Bachan Singh Thind''s case but at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard. The needful shall be done within three

months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

All the four cases are, accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.