Civil Writ Petition No.11183 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11183 of 1992 Date of Decision:06.05.2011 Rajwant Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Tejinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned enhancement of the price of his plot, bearing No.695, situated in Phase 70, Mohali of S.A.S.Nagar, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the writ petition was admitted on 18.08.1992, to be heard along with Civil Writ Petition No.13283 of 1991, which has already been accepted. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered and deserves to be decided in the same terms of the judgment dated 28.09.1992 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.13283 of 1991 titled as D.S. Laungia and others Versus . The State of Punjab and others, which in substance is, as under:- “Keeping in view the mandatory nature of these Rules, the allotment letter provided that the allotment had been made subject to the Civil Writ Petition No.11183 of 1992 2 provisions of the Act and the Rules and policy framed thereunder. These provisions eliminate arbitrariness by the functionaries in the matter of sale of plots by allotment or otherwise or covered under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A conjoint reading of Rule 4, 5-A and 2(aa) of the Rules establishes that the tentative price of a plot is determined in conformity with Rule 4 and the additional price is confined to enhancement of compensation on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Collector to the Land Acquisition Court and further enhancement on appeal, if any, against the award of the Land Acquisition Court rendered on a reference under Section 18. The respondents do not say that the additional price is claimed because of the enhancement of compensation by the Land Acquisition Court or by the appellate Court, on appeal, against the award of the Land Acquisition Court. The enhancement is sought to be justified on the ground that the estimated receipts and expenditure from the sale of plots were not sufficient to meet the cost of external development services like outfall sewer and treatment plant, some major roads common to more than one Sectors, major bridges, major hospitals, colleges, major community buildings like Clubs performing art and cultural theatres, museums, fire station, central library, cremation grounds, sport stadium, etc. A perusal of the written statement indicates that the anticipated receipts from the sale of plots in Sector 70, S.A.S. Nagar would fetch the State Government approximately Rs.40,19,44,600/- and as against this the estimated expenditure would come Rs.39,15,34,824/- and the surplus receipts of Rs.1,04,09,776/- were to be utilized for providing more facilities to the allottees. The receipts by sale of plots, which obviously included the development charges are much more than the estimated costs. If external development services had to be provided to the allottees as is being mentioned in the written statement and correspondingly price of the plot has to be increased, then the same can only be done by making suitable amendment in the Rules and not otherwise. The Rules do not provide for claiming any additional price other than the one mentioned in Clause (aa) of Section 2. The justification offered by the respondents for the additional price is de hors the Rules. xx xx xx xx xx In the light of this, the claim of the respondents for the enhanced price cannot be justified at law. Civil Writ Petition No.11183 of 1992 3 For the reasons stated above, the petitions succeed. The claim for the enhanced price as is mentioned in the notice addressed to Sh. D.S. Longia is set aside. Separate orders need not be passed in other cases since the notices sent to the petitioners in all these cases are almost identical terms. The State Government is free to re-determine the price of the plots in the light of the statutory Rules and the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.” In the light of aforesaid reasons and in this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned enhanced amount of price of the indicated plot, is quashed in the same terms of the judgment in D.S. Laungia and others's case( supra) in this context. May 06, 2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge