Ram Singh vs The Secretary to Government Punjab Housing and Urban Development (Civil Secretariate) and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—In response to an advertisement Annexure P-1 made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, Chandigarh in December, 1975, the petitioner submitted all application before the allotment authority for the allotment of a 6 marla plot under the backward class category, and also submitted the requisite earnest money for the allotment. This application was duly received and registered with the respondent. As per the allegations in the petition, all other applicants were allotted plots in the year 1976 but no action was taken for the allotment to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 14.5.1981, however, the respondent asked the petitioner to deposit a sum equal to 25% of the then prevailing price within 30 days of the receipt of that letter and this amount too was paid by the petitioner vide a Bank draft which was duly received by the respondent. No allotment was, however, made to the petitioner. The petitioner then received another letter dated 22.7.1982 in which it was directed that the affidavits pertaining to the petitioner''s income be filled. This formality was also duly completed. Vide letter dated 22.9.1992 the respondent informed the petitioner that he was not eligible for the allotment of a 6 marla plot has he did not fulfil the income criteria. The respondents changed the allotment policy in May, 1983 and a press note Annexure P-2 was issued in this regard. It was made clear that the petitioner and others similarly situated were entitled for allotment of plots of 4 Marlas and options from old/pending applicants to that effect was also invited. The petitioner vide letter dated 14.10.1983 exercised his option for the allotment of a 5 marlas plot and completed the legal formalities for the allotment. On 3.1.1985 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent Annexure P-4 that since there were no 5 Marla plot in SAS Nagar, he should clarify whether he was willing to accept a 4 Marla plot. Vide Annexure P-5 dated 19.1.1985, the petitioner gave his option for a four marla i.e. 100 sq. yard plot. The allotment of 4/5 marla plots was started at the end of January, 1985, and as there were more plots than the number of applicants, no draw for these plots was held and allotments were made straight away through no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached the respondents time and again without success. This petition has thereafter been filed.

Notice of motion was issued and a reply has been filed by the respondents. The stand of the respondent is that though an application had been made as already stated above yet the petitioner had been ignored for the reasons that he had not filed an affidavit to the effect that he would not dispose of the plot in any way for ten years from the date of transfer of the ownership to him and as this affidavit was a mandatory condition of allotment as per the 1983 policy, annexure R-1, he had been left out of the allotment. A replication has been filed by the petitioner in which he has stated that he had never been called upon to file an affidavit as stated in the written statement, and this matter could not therefore be taken against him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the fact as stated above. It appears that no intimation had been given to the petitioner with regard to the requirement of an affidavit in the manner indicated above. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any such information having been conveyed to the petitioner he was under no obligation to file an affidavit. It is true that vide Annexure R-1 which is the policy for allotment issued in 1983 there is a specific mention that an affidavit had to be filed and the specimen that an affidavit has also been given in the said policy letter. I am, however, of the opinion that as the petitioner had applied for allotment under the advertisement Annexure P-1, which contained no such stipulation, he was under no obligation to file an affidavit as provided under Annexure R-1 as he was an old applicant and had only been called upon to exercise his option which he did on 14.10.1983. The respondents were, therefore, in duty bound to inform him about the necessity of filing an affidavit. This they did not do. This petition is accordingly allowed, and a direction issued to the respondents to allot a plot of 100 sq. yards (4 marla) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also clarified that the price to be paid by the petitioner will be fixed as per the price in the year 1985 for similar plots.

No costs.