IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14963 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 23, 2010. Jaswant Singh Gidda .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a Non-Resident-Indian to whom a residential plot of 500 square yards was allotted in Sector-69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 6.9.1995 (Annexure P-4) @ Rs.1400/- per square yards. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit 75% of the balance allotment price within a period of 30 days of issuance of the allotment letter. As the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount, the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali, vide order dated 11.3.1997 (Annexure P-6) cancelled the allotment. The petitioner challenged that order on 14.2.2003 in appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, which was turned down vide order dated 21.3.2003 (Annexure P-11). Still aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Revisional C.W.P.No .14963 of 2010 2 Authority who too declined to interfere in the matter vide the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 (Annexure P-18), giving rise to this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. It is urged that the petitioner had applied for the plots earmarked for NRIs and had given consent for allotment @ Rs.1200/- per square yards. However, contrary to the petitioner's consent, the respondents offered the allotment vide memo dated 6.9.1995 (Annexure P-4) @ Rs.1400/- per square yards which was further hit by the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2000 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.8265 of 2000 (Sucha Singh versus State of Punjab and others) and other connected matters (Annexure P-19). It is further urged that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest etc. but no such opportunity was ever given to him. It is also urged that the petitioner requested for revival of the allotment on payment of the current allotment price but such a fair offer has also not been acceded to for no valid reason. On this premise, it is argued that the action of the respondents in canceling the allotment is patently arbitrary and discriminatory. In my considered view, no case to interfere with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. It may be true that the petitioner had given consent for allotment @ Rs.1200/- per square yards and the respondents allotted him the plot at a higher rate i.e. Rs.1400/- per square yards. In such an event, either the petitioner ought to have C.W.P.No .14963 of 2010 3 deposited the demanded amount under protest or challenge the enhanced demand before an appropriate forum. The terms and conditions of allotment expressly obligated the petitioner to deposit 75% of the balance price within a period of 30 days but the petitioner kept sitting at home and allowed the grass to grow under his feet. The fact that the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation of allotment for a period of more than five years is yet another strong circumstance to suggest that he was not in the need of the plot and now wants to retain on a second through, may be for the purpose of investment or future speculative gains. In these circumstances, the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. As regards the petitioner's offer to pay the current allotment price, no such policy decision/rules have been referred to which might compel the authorities to revive the allotment. If there is any such policy decision/ rules, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply to the respondents accordingly. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. August 23, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE