Civil Writ Petition No.8444 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-8.3.2011 Dharam Singh s/o Deva Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Nemo for respondent No.3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The epitome the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner was owner of land in question, which was acquired for the purpose of Housing-cum- Development Scheme in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana by the respondent-Improvement Trust, under the provisions of The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). In the wake of acquisition of the land, the petitioner became a local displaced person as defined under the Act and was entitled to the allotment of a plot, in pursuance of utilization of land and allotment of plots scheme, in view of the Improvement Trust Rules, 1975. 2. The petitioner claimed that he made an application for allotment of plot as per the allotment scheme and made the required payment. As a consequence of which, he was allotted the plot bearing No.22-B measuring 300 square yards, by virtue of allotment letter dated 17.12.1990 (Annexure P1). The allotment was stated to have been arbitrarily cancelled, without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, by way of impugned Civil Writ Petition No.8444 of 1991 2 cancellation letter/order dated 13.5.1991 (Annexure P2) by the respondent -Improvement Trust. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned cancellation letter/order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia pleading therein, that since his land was acquired, so the plot bearing No.22-B measuring 300 square yards was rightly allotted to him by the respondent- Improvement Trust, as per his entitlement under the Improvement Trust Rules, vide allotment letter (Annexure P1), but the same was illegally cancelled without, issuing any show cause notice, affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, conducting any inquiry and without any legal basis. According to the petitioner that there was no provision under the Act to cancel the plot in such an arbitrary manner. It can only be resumed if there was some default regarding payment, construction or violation of the Rules and Regulations and not otherwise. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned cancellation letter/order (Annexure P2) in the manner indicated hereinabove. 4. The respondent-Improvement Trust to begin with contested the claim of the petitioner and filed its written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The fact of acquisition of land and allotment of plot in question to the petitioner was admitted. According to the contesting respondent that since the plot of the petitioner had fallen in the area reserved for play ground of the school as per the scheme, so, it was rightly cancelled. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 5. As no body appeared on behalf of the respondent-Improvement Trust Civil Writ Petition No.8444 of 1991 3 despite repeated adjournments, therefore, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, that land of the petitioner was acquired and in lieu thereof, plot bearing No.22-B, measuring 300 square yards was allotted to him, by means of allotment letter (Annexure P1). Strange enough, the allotment was abruptly and arbitrarily cancelled by the respondent-Improvement Trust, by way of impugned cancellation letter/order (Annexure P2), without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent-Improvement Trust in its written statement that the plot was cancelled in violation of the terms and conditions of allotment. The case put forth in its written statement that since the plot of the petitioner was subsequently reserved for play ground of the school, so, it was cancelled, is not legally tenable in this regard. 7. No cogent material is forth coming on record even to suggest remotely that how and in what manner, the plot of the petitioner was reserved for play ground of the school. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted), it was so reserved, even then the respondent-Improvement Trust was not competent to cancel the same, that too, without issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned cancellation letter/order (Annexure P2) is cryptic, non-speaking and lacks application of mind. The respondent-Improvement Trust ought to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner and having heard him, should independently record valid reasons before cancellation of the plot and the cancellation order must be informed by reasons, which is totally lacking in the instant case. 8. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Civil Writ Petition No.8444 of 1991 4 Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held (para 8) as under : - “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 9. Thus, seen from any angle, the impugned cancellation letter/order (Annexure P2) cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned cancellation letter/order (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to allot the plot in question (if available) or alternative plot of the same size to the petitioner within a period of three months from today in accordance with law. 8.3.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No