IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18983 of 1995 Date of decision : 01.12.2011 Kapur Chand … Petitioner Versus Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and others …Respondents CWP No.18984 of 1995 Date of decision : 01.12.2011 Banarsi Lal Bajaj … Petitioner Versus Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and others …Respondents CWP No.8633 of 1996 Date of decision : 01.12.2011 Santokh Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.V.K.Vashishta, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP Nos.18983 & 18984 of 1995 Mr. D.S.Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 8633 of 1996. Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh. Paramjeet Singh, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No.18983 of 1995 titled as ‘Kapur Chand Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and others’, CWP No.18984 of 1995 titled as ‘Banarsi Lal Bajaj Vs. Union Territory CWP No.18983 of 1995 Chandigarh Administration and others’, and CWP No.8633 of 1995 titled as ‘Santokh Singh and others Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and others’ as common questions of law and facts are involved and these have been listed for hearing together. For convenience sake, facts are taken from CWP No.18983 of 1995. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.1 and 2 to allot one Kanal plot in Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh in view of the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.11.1995 in SLP Nos.4848 of 1995 and 4860 of 1995 (Annexure P-7) titled as “Kapur Chand Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and others. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1977, an advertisement was issued by the respondents-Union Territory Chandigarh for allotment of plots ranging from 10 marlas to 08 Kanals in the Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for allotment of 02 Kanals plot along with earnest money of Rs.1000/-. Plots were to be allotted on concessional rate of Rs.15/- per Sq.yards on lease for 99 years. Thereafter, applications were scrutinized by the District Industries Officer and the particulars of the petitioner were got verified. In February, 1979, the rates of the plots were increased from Rs.15 per Sq.yds. to Rs.35 per Sq.yds and the petitioner was asked to give consent qua that rate. The petitioner accepted the revised rate and additional earnest money was deposited by the petitioner. After that on 9.10.1979, draw of lots was held by the respondents. Two lists were prepared i.e. one of successful candidates and another of waiting list. The petitioner remained successful and his name figured in the waiting list at Sr.No.9 in 01 Kanal category. However, the 2 CWP No.18983 of 1995 petitioner was not allotted plot and earnest money was refunded. On 14.4.1981, U.T. Administration advertised for allotment of plots on identical terms. However, rate fixed was Rs.50 per Sq.Yds. Fresh applications were invited. The petitioner along with other similarly situated persons filed CWP No.2025 of 1981 titled as “Joginder Paul and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others” for quashing advertisement dated 14.4.1981. Reply was filed by the Additional Estate Officer on 1.6.1982 in the writ petition and submitted therein that 35 plots of one kanal category were available for allotment on 9.10.1979 when the draw of lots was held. However, only 25 plots had been allotted. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 19.8.1982, disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to start allotting 5 and 10 marla plots available with them to the persons on the waiting list in the manner their names existed in the said list. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents –Union Territory Chandigarh preferred Letters Patent Appeal no.1372 of 1982 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.1991(Annexure P-3) allowed the appeal. Relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:- “The limited right to the petitioner, if any, was that if any of the plots which were allotted to any of the successful applicants by draw of lots, was surrendered or any of the applicant was not found eligible then that can be offered to them according to their serial number on the waiting list.” The petitioner being aggrieved against order dated 29.1.1991 (Annexure P-3) filed SLP No.11290 of 1991 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and 3 CWP No.18983 of 1995 the order dated 18.07.1991 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- “That High Court had committed an error in the appreciation of the facts. The petitioner, if advised could move the High Court for review or rectification of its order. With these orders the S.L.P. was disposed of.” Thereafter a review petition was filed which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21.10.1993. Against the review order dated 21.10.1993, petitioner filed SLP and Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the SLP to limited extent vide order dated 15.9.1994 (Annexure P-5) and remitted back the case to the Division Bench for fresh decision. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition on 24.4.1995 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner again approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging order dated 24.4.1995 (Annexure P-6). Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.11.1995 (Annexure P-7) in SLP No.4848 of 1995 titled as “Kapur Chand Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and others” disposed of the S.L.P. by passing the following order:- “Mr.Jaitely, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that in the respective lists of one Kanal category and 10 marlas category, plots are available and those plots should at least, be released to the people on the waiting list as per the design spelled out by the High Court. His plea rather is that the plots for the purpose in the pool, cannot be withheld for long by the Chandigarh Administration. Prima facie, Mr. Jaitely appears to be right. This will require some consequential directions from the 4 CWP No.18983 of 1995 High Court so that the matter in this regard is brought to its finale and does not keep lingering on unnecessarily, breeding fresh litigation. Let the petitioners approach the High Court for consequential directions subject to the facts afore-pleaded being correct.” That during the pendency of this writ petition, out of another set of writ petitions, some of the persons approached the Apex Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4942 of 1989 passed orders dated 27.10.1999, a relevant part of which reads as under:- “After going through the records, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions ought to have been decided after issuance of notice and by a speaking order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court with a direction that the writ petitions filed by the appellants should be decided afresh. It is made clear that the High Court will not, if it grants any relief to the appellants herein, disturb any of those allottees who have set up an industry or are in the process of setting up an industry on the plots allotted to them. In other words the High Court will grant relief. If it is so inclined, only in respect of vacant plots. Liberty to the appellants is granted to approach the High Court for an early date. The High Court will decide the writ petitions after giving opportunities to the parties to place on record such claims or pleadings as the parties may desire.” 5 CWP No.18983 of 1995 In view of the directions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the petitioners in the aforementiond three writ petitions can be granted only limited relief for consideration of their claim by the U.T. Administration that if any plot is still available and is lying vacant for any reason i.e. either the plot has been surrendered or cancelled or otherwise remained vacant after draw of lots, it be offered to the petitioners if they are found eligible. However, the petitioner will be required to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount fixed by the administration at the relevant time of advertisement. All the above mentioned three writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE 01.12.2011 sd/vkd 6