IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15948 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:27.05.2011 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner versus Improvement Trust, Patiala ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petitioner seeks for consideration of claim for allotment, pursuant to the advertisement through P1 that called for offers from public for purchase of property through an allotment made at a particular price. The applications were invited latest upto 21.03.1989 and it contained also terms and conditions prescribed through Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983. It contained a stipulation that 25% of the sale price at the time of allotment was required to be paid and the remaining 75% shall be paid in equated installments. The applicants, who had applied for allotment under the scheme earlier on a payment of Rs.500/- or Rs.1,000/- were required to apply afresh, but they could make the deduction of the amount already paid, provided a copy was also attached with the application. The Civil Writ Petition No.15948 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - contention of the petitioner was that in response to this notice, the petitioner had applied for an allotment of a plot by depositing Rs.8,000/- in March, 1989. The grievance of the petitioner was that without making an allotment, a fresh public notice was issued extending the receipt of applications upto 31.03.1989. Since the response was not good, a further notice was issued in an English Daily on 15.05.1989 calling for applications for general quota and reserved quota on reserved price as per rules in the development scheme. The public notice clearly spelt out that no person shall be allowed for allotment of a residential plot or whose spouse jointly or severally held a residential plot in the territory of Chandigarh or any urban estate in any scheme of the Improvement Trust. Still later, applications were again called for through yet another notice inviting applications upto 31.10.1989. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent was bound to make an allotment on the basis of applications received and it ought not to have periodically extended the period for completion or receive fresh applications without making allotments in terms of the first advertisement issued under Ex.P1. 3. Ex.P1 itself states clearly that the applications are invited for allotment by draw of lots. If the amount had been paid and not returned to the petitioner so long as the subsequent advertisement did not require the petitioner to apply afresh, I cannot take it that the petitioner could in any way be aggrieved by fresh advertisements calling for applications from public for better response and to ensure that all the properties were allotted by sufficient number of applications coming. An advertisement Civil Writ Petition No.15948 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - is invariably an invitation to offer and does not conclude a contract. If an advertisement was issued setting out the price and he had also paid his earnest money, he was bound to pursue his remedy as and when plots were allotted at the price mentioned under Ex.P1. The writ petition seeking for a direction that a claim of the petitioner shall be allotted as per the original scheme is quite unnecessary since none of the other advertisements have forfeited the claims of persons, who have already applied for allotments. 4. I will not think it necessary to issue any direction to the respondents that the respondent shall not make any allotment in violation of the scheme. It is not possible for any public authority to violate a scheme. This shall not be construed as dis-entitling the petitioner to secure an allotment if the allotments have not been finalised. The petitioner shall be given credit to the amount already paid with interest at 12% per annum and adjusted against the price that may be determined, if he is found entitled to allotment, as per the scheme. This Court has already passed an interim order not to allot the property to any other party till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner's entitlement shall be considered with respect to the conditions that existed at the time of filing of the writ petition and if found entitled, the present market price may be determined and offered to him by stipulating a period for compliance. The writ petition is disposed off as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 27.05.2011 sanjeev