State of Punjab vs Kanwarjit Singh Paonta

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This appeal is preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 20.11.1986 in CWP No. 3357 of 1986. Motion Bench had stayed the implementation of the judgment.

The respondent in this appeal filed a writ petition claiming issuance of a writ of Mandamus to make allotment of plot in the Urban Estate, Ludhiana after serving individual notice to him. Conspectus of the factual position may be stated as follows:-

The Estate Officer, Urban Estate Ludhiana issued an advertisement on 5.7.1981 inviting applications for allotment of residential plots of different sizes measuring 200, 150,125 and 100 Sq. yards on free hold basis in the Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Phase II, Samrala Road, Sectors 38-39 at Ludhiana. The petitioner applied for allotment of a residential plot measuring 125 Sq. yards in pursuance of the said advertisement on 28.7.1981 and also deposited the earnest money in the sum of Rs. 1062.50. But no action has been taken by the Estate Officer on the said application of the respondent. The Estate Officer issued a public notice on 19.10.1982 in "Daily Tribune" that the draw of plots measuring 150, 200 Sq. yards would be held shortly. A list of the applicants had also been displayed on the notice board of the office of Estate Officer. In the said list against the name of the respondent, there was a remark "affidavit required". The respondent collected the proforma and submitted the affidavit. But no action has been taken on the application received in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 1981. On 10.8.1983 another notice was published that the policy of the State Government had been revised and the plots were divided into three different groups measuring 100, 150 and 200 Sq. yards. Since there was no plot measuring 125 Sq. yards in the revised policy the respondent gave an option for a residential plot measuring 100 sq. yards but it was published in ''Sunday Tribune'' dated 7.1.1985 that 100 Sq, yards plots were not available on Samrala Road, Urban Estate, Sectors 38- 39 and that the applicants for 100 Sq. yards plots can opt for allotment of 125 Sq. yards and the earnest money was also increased to Rs. 2000/-. The respondent was supposed to deposit a sum of Rs. 937.50 in addition to the amount already deposited but no individual notices were given to the applicants. The Estate Officer allotted the plots measuring 125 Sq. yards to several other applicants without considering the claim of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent made a representation but of no avail. Another advertisement was issued in the newspaper by the Estate Officer on 18.5.1986 stating that the old applicants who had not been allotted plots to choose any size of plots mentioned in the said notice. The respondent sent a representation on 24.5.1986 by registered post praying that he should be permitted to deposit the balance earnest money amounting to Rs. 2937/- but the respondent received no reply. Therefore, the respondent filed the writ petition for a direction to allot a plot to him. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. Hence the appellant filed this appeal.

There was no dispute of the fact that the original scheme published on 5.7.1981 was revised by the State Government and fresh notice was published in the ''Daily Tribune'' on 19.10.1982. The respondent applied for allotment of a plot of 125 Sq. yards in pursuance of advertisement and the same was not available under the revised policy. Though the applicants who applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 1981 were given an option to apply for the plots measuring 100, 150 and 200 Sq. yards the respondent gave his option for a plot measuring 100 Sq. yards. The respondent could not be allotted the plot as there were no plots of 100 Sq. yards in Samrala Road Urban Estate. Therefore, all the applicants who opted for 100 Sq. yards were given a further option for allotment of 125 Sq. yards plots at an enhanced price but the respondent did not opt for any plot in pursuance of publication dated 7.1.1985. Therefore the Estate Officer issued another advertisement on 18.5.1986 stating that the old applicants who had not been allotted plots can choose any size of plot mentioned in the said advertisement. In pursuance of the said advertisement the respondent sent a representation by registered post.

Thus, on the facts narrated above, it is clear that the policy had been changed from time to time by the State Government and finally old applicants were asked to give their choice to any size of plot mentioned in the notice dated 18.5.1986 published in the newspaper which is annexed as Annexure P.15 to the writ petition. We are of the opinion that the respondent cannot make any grievance against the scrapping of the old policy. He has not filed any writ petition challenging the revision of the policy by the State Government. In this writ petition he cannot make any grievance of it as any challenge to the revision of the policy in the year 1982-83 is highly belated. The respondent is also estopped from challenging the notice published in the newspaper on 18.5.1986 as he made a representation on 24.5.1986 in pursuance of the said notice. The only point that is to be considered is whether the respondent satisfied the conditions laid down in the notice dated 18.5.1986. It is useful to. extract the relevant portion in the advertisement dated 18.5.1986 which is as under

"All the old applicants who made applications in the several Urban Estates for the allotment of plots and still have not been issued the plot, they are informed by this publication that now as per their income group which is mentioned below they can choose/opt any size of plot.

xx xx xx xx

All the registered applicants, if they desire, they may opt any size of plot and if there is any balance amount to the earnest money they should deposit the same, to fulfil the requirement, by bank draft which should be payable at any scheduled bank (where the office of the Estate Officer exists) and in favour of relating Estate Officer. The option of the plot will be treated as final. On receipt of such options and if found/required the draw for the allotment of plots will be made as per the policy of the state Govt."

The said notice also gives the particulars of the amount to be deposited as earnest money in respect of the plots of different sizes. The respondent sent a representation on 24.5.1986 by registered post. In the said representation the respondent wrote as follows:-

"That I am ready to deposit the balance earnest money for considering my name for the allotment of 200 sq. yds. plot as per the order of the Chief Administrator, Urban Estate Punjab Chandigarh dated 10.2.1986 and public notice dated 18.5.1986 issued by Sh. Onkar Singh, Director Urban Estate Punjab Chandigarh, if the plots, measuring 206 Sq. yds. at Samrala Road are available.

That I am too willing to deposit the balance earnest money for the allotment of 200 Sq. yds. plot if my name is considered for the allotment even at Duri Road, Ludhiana provided the'' plots measuring 200 sq. yds. are available at Durgri Road, Ludhiana and the draw of which is stilt pending.

It is, therefore, prayed that the directions/confirmation regarding availability of plots at Samrala Road, Sector 38-39, Ludhiana as well as at Dugri Road, Ludhiana may kindly be issued and enable me to deposit the balance earnest money amounting to Rs. 2937/- (as Rs. 1062.50 out of Rs. 4000/ stands deposited) upto 31.5.1986 as per the requirement of public notice dated 18.5.1986 issued by Sh. Onkar Singh, Director Urban Estate Punjab, Chandigarh, please."

This representation cannot be said as an option exercised in pursuance of notice dated 18.5.1986. In the representation itself the respondent clearly stated that on enquiry from the Estate Office Ludhiana he came to know that plot measuring 150 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards were not available at Sectors 38-39, Samrala Road, Ludhiana. Therefore, there is no question of his seeking confirmation regarding availability of plots at Samrala Road, Sectors 38-39, Ludhiana. Therefore, there is no exercise of option by the respondent as envisaged in the public notice dated 18.5.1986. There cannot be any conditional acceptance or exercise of option. In the said public notice it is clearly mentioned that the options have to be sent so as to reach the Estate Officer by 31.5.1986. The respondent did not send his option within the time stipulated in the public notice. He has chosen to send the representation to the Estate Officer, Ludhiana by registered post. There is no dispute of the fact that the said representation sent by registered post was received in the office after the expiry of the last date for exercising the option. It has been held by Full Bench of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University and Others, that the applications received after the last date mentioned in the notice cannot be treated as valid applications.

In view of what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the respondent has not complied with the requirements of the public notice dated 18.5.1986 (Annexure P15) and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief prayed for in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.