Narinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the Improvement Trust, Amritsar and State of Punjab to allot her plot No. B-97 measuring 250 Sq. yards in the Ajnala Road Development Scheme, Amritsar and deliver its physical possession. The above-mentioned directions have been sought in this backdrop that the petitioner is a Non Resident Indian and as per the Punjab Government''s notification dated 26.04.1976 (Annexure P1), the State Government approved various categories of the persons to whom plots could be allotted under rule 7(b) of the Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by the Improvement Trusts Rules, 1975. As per Serial No. 11 of this notification the "Indians settled abroad who are willing to pay the entire price in foreign exchange in lump sum" are also included in the said preferential category.

The petitioner moved an application on 29.09.1979 stating that she wanted to settle down at Amritsar if a residential plot was allotted to her.

The petitioner''s application was considered by the Improvement Trust, who vide resolution No. 292 dated 30.10.1979 (Annexure P3) resolved to allot her plot No. B-97 measuring 250 sq. yards. The petitioner though deposited the earnest money expressing her willingness for the allotment however, it is an admitted fact that the State Government declined to approve the resolution of the Improvement Trust and as a result thereto, no allotment letter was issued to the petitioner.

It is in this backdrop that the above-mentioned directions have been sought by the petitioner, who further alleges discrimination in this regard as one Smt. Paramjit Kaur Bal had been allotted plot No. B-277 under the same Scheme on payment of the reserve price in foreign exchange.

The Improvement Trust - respondent No. 2 has filed its written statement, inter alia, pointing out that a similar CWP No. 11155 of 1988 (Dr. Mukhtiar Singh v. Punjab State etc.) has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.04.1991. As regards the petitioner''s claim, it is candidly admitted that the State Government declined to approve the recommendations made by the then Chairman of the Improvement Trust. Para 8 of the Reply-on-Merits explains as follows:--

"That in reply to para 8 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was referred to the State Government vide letter dated 08.07.1980 for the allotment of government quota and government rejected all the recommendations made by the former Chairman in September 1980 and intimation to this effect was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.06.1981. She was also asked to get the amount of earnest money refunded from the Trust. Hence there was no question of handing over the possession of disputed plot."

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the resolution passed by the Improvement Trust deciding in principle to allot a plot vests the petitioner with an indefensible and legally enforceable right?

On giving our thoughtful consideration to the question, we are of the view that it must be answered in negative. We say so for the reasons that the notification dated 26.04.1976 (Annexure P1) merely lays down the policy decision of the State Government enabling the Improvement Trusts to make allotments to certain categories of persons on preferential basis at reserve price. This notification does not and cannot defy the compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution. The policy decision could be given effect by issuing a public notice and inviting applications from all eligible and interested persons. It is the conceded position that no such recourse in the instant case was followed. To say it differently, the resolution of the Trust was nothing but a discretionary allotment of plot on pick and choose basis. It does not satisfy the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

That apart, it is also an admitted fact that no allotment letter was issued to the petitioner. In the absence thereof, the resolution was a mere promise. No legally enforceable or concluded contract had ever taken place between the parties. Since we have held that the resolution was not in conformity with law, it cannot be said to have given rise to a legitimate right.

The fact that the Improvement Trust committed an illegality while allotting plot to one Paramjit Kaur Bal under the same scheme, does not clothe the petitioner to seek a mandamus or force the authority to repeat that illegality. No writ court can issue such a direction.

For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The plot, if any, reserved for the petitioner would be allotted in a transparent manner and in accordance with law.