CWP No.107 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.107 of 2009 Date of decision: January 7, 2009. M/s Property Promoters ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.11.2008 (Annexure P-18) passed by the Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) whereby the petitioner's claim for allotment of a site under group-housing scheme at SAS Nagar (Mohali) has been turned down on the ground that the subject site shall be allotted by way of open auction and in a transparent manner so as to yield the maximum value to the government. The petitioner is a builder. In response to an advertisement issued on 27th May, 1993 for allotment of land in the urban estate of SAS CWP No.107 of 2009 -: 2 :- Nagar (Mohali) for group-housing scheme, the petitioner also applied, however, instead of allotting any site to the petitioner, one of the site (in short the subject site) was allotted to M/s Sandhu Builders. The petitioner challenged the said allotment before this Court in CWP No.2596 of 1997 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:- “Shri Jain tried to convince us that a mandamus should be issued directing the respondent No.2 to allot land to the petitioner but we are not inclined to accept his request because the maximum which the petitioner is entitled, is the consideration of its application to the exclusion of the respondent No.3 but the final decision about the suitability of the applicants has to be taken by the respondent No.2 after due consideration of the applications submitted by the eligible parties. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The selection of the respondent No.3 for allotmentof land for group housing is declared unconstituional and quashed with the direction to the respondent No.2 to undertake fresh exercise for consideration of the applications received by it in pursuance of the advertisements issued by it for the purpose of allotment of land in the Urban Estate, SAS Nagar (Mohali). This shall be done by the respondent No.2 within a period of two months of the submissions of a certified copy of this order by the ;etitioner and it CWP No.107 of 2009 -: 3 :- shall not be necessary for the registry of this court to send copies of the order to the official respondents.” (emphasis applied) A review application moved by M/s Sandhu Builders as well as an application moved by the then PUDA authorities (now GMADA) for modification of the said order were also dismissed. However, before any further action could be taken for a fresh allotment of the subject site, the GAMADA is stated to have changed its policy of allotment by inviting application and has rather decided to dispose of the subject site by way of open auction. Vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2008, the Chief Administrator, GMADA has accordingly turned down the petitioner's claim for allotment of the subject site on the basis of its application submitted in the year 1993 and has observed that the subject site shall be sold by way of an open auction so that it fetches maximum revenue which can then be utilized for the development works benefiting the public at large. It will be apposite to reproduce the following relevant contents of the impugned order:- “4. I have gone through the facts ofhte case and relevant file. I have duly considered the various representations of M/s Property Promoters as mentioned above. The matter has also been considered in light of the existing policy of PUDA/GMADA. As per decision of the Finance and Accounts Committee of PUDA taken in its meeting held on 20.7.2006 vide item No.51.18, such sites are to be sold only by way of open auction. Undoubtedly this is the most transparent procedure of CWP No.107 of 2009 -: 4 :- disposal of property. 5. The case in hand is regarding this disposal of a public property. It cannot be over-emphasized that the public property should be sold in the most transparent manner so as to yield the maximum value for the Government. Needless to mention that the money so received is spent for the development works benefiting the public at large. The transfer of a public land by preferential allotment will not only be against the existing policy of GMADA but also it will be detrimental to the Authority/s as well as public interest. If the prayer of M/s Property Promoters is accepted at this stage it will straightway cause a huge loss to GMADA. The proposal is aimed at obtaining the land at a very low historical price in order to further sell the flats built on this land at the market rate, thereby earning huge profit at the cost of public exchequer. A private party cannot be allowed to reap a windfall at public expenses.” Aggrieved, the petitioner assails the aforementioned order and claims that the subject site should be allotted to it for development of a group-housing multi-storeyed flat scheme. In support of his prayer, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the operative part of the Division Bench judgment dated September 15,1998 whereby the respondents were directed “to undertake fresh exercise for consideration of the applications received by it in pursuance of the advertisement issued by it for the purpose of allotment of CWP No.107 of 2009 -: 5 :- land in the urban estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali”. He also refers to various office notings to maintain that after the aforementioned judgment, the authorities were aware of the fact that the petitioner was the only left out eligible applicant who is entitled to be allotted the subject site. According to the learned counsel, the impugned decision has been taken merely to deprive the petitioner from the allotment and then to dispose of the site to a few one in a clandestine manner. He further contends that the disposal of the site by way of public auction is a mere pretext as no such permission was granted by this Court while dismissing the application moved by the GMADA for modification of the order dated 15th September, 1998. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. While deciding the previous writ petition vide judgment dated September 15, 1998, the Division Bench of this Court expressly turned down the petitioner's request for allotment of the subject site when the allotment of the site in favour of M/s Sandhu Builders had already been set aside. There is no quarrel that the development and allotment of sites by GMADA/PUDA is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development Act, 1995. Section 43(4) of the Act enables the authorities to dispose of any property by “auction, allotment or otherwise”. There is a sea change in the circumstances after the year 1993. The rates of the properties have multiplied and there can indeed be no doubt that if the subject plot is put to 'open auction', it is bound to fetch the price CWP No.107 of 2009 -: 6 :- which would be manifold higher than to what was assessed in the year 1993 when the applications under the group-housing scheme were invited. The court's endeavour would be to support and promote the transparent manner of disposal of public properties which fetches maximum revenue, to be utilized for the development works and other public services. Merely by inviting applications from the public, including the petitioner, no vested right has accrued in their favour to seek the allotment as a matter of right. The decision to bring about a change in the method of allotment taken by GAMADA, which is otherwise in consonance with the statutory scheme enumerated under the 1995 Act, can neither be termed as arbitrary nor suffering with a vice, like colourable exercise of power. The allotment by way of 'public auction' would rather ensure that no favourtism, abuse or misuse of power takes place. It would be a legitimate mean to enrich the State Exchequer and would, thus, be in larger public interest also. An individual's personal interest must yield before the 'public interest'. No interference by this Court is, therefore, warranted. Needless to say that if the authorities fail to allot the subject site by way of 'public auction' or resort to any unfair method for its allotment, the petitioner would always be entitled to question such an action of the authorities in appropriate separate proceeding. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. January 07, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge