CWP No. 530 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 530 of 2008 Date of decision 17 .12.2008 M/s Kay Jay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondent no.2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution is for setting aside the order dated 5.12.2006 (Annexure P.7) passed by respondent no.1, exercising the powers as Revisional Authority under the Punjab Regional Town Planning Development Act, 1995 (for brevity 'the Act'); order dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure P.6) passed by Additional Administrator, PUDA exercising the powers of Appellate Authority and order dated 25.4.2005 (Annexure P.5) passed by respondent no.3 under Section 46(1) of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.1968 an Industrial Plot No. E-1, Focal Point Ludhiana was allotted by Director Urban Estate Punjab Chandigarh in favour of M/s Surjeet Industries through its partner Shri Surjeet Singh. It is alleged in the petition that on 8.4.1979, the CWP No. 530 of 2008 2 petitioner struck a deal with Shri Surjeet Singh in respect of the said plot for a total consideration of Rs. 52,000/- and that Shri Surjeet Singh had received the entire sale consideration. Even the possession of the plot was handed over by him to the petitioner and in this behalf a memo of agreement was entered and the receipt cum possession was issued ( Annexure P.3) . It was further agreed by the parties that after clearing the dues, if any, of the Director, Urban Estate, Punjab the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the petitioner. On 12.5.1979 a will was also executed by Surjeet singh in favour of Gopal Krishan Kothari, the then Managing Director of the petitioner company ( Annexure P.4). Because of pre-occupation in business petitioner failed to get registered conveyance deed executed in his favour. Petitioner also came to know about the death of Shri Surjeet Singh and the legal representatives of the deceased could not be traced by the petitioner. On 3.8.1979, Industrial Plot No. E 2, Focal Point, Ludhiana was also allotted by the Director Urban Estates in favour of the petitioner company. After payment of the entire sale consideration registered conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner was executed ( Annexure P.1) in the respect of Plot No. E-2. In the year 1979-80 the petitioner company raised construction on both the plots i.e. E.1 and E.2 by installing huge plant and machinery. In the year 2004-05, petitioner received a notice under the Act alleging that it is in unauthorised occupation of Plot No. E-1, Focal Point Ludhiana to which the petitioner replied. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 25.4.2005, without considering the plea of the petitioner and without going through the records, the Estate Officer, PUDA ordered ejectment of the petitioner with a direction to handover its possession within 30 days ( Annexure P.5). On 25.4.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Chief CWP No. 530 of 2008 3 Administrator, PUDA which was rejected vide order dated 9.1.2006 ( Annexure P.6). The suit filed by the petitioner on 23.2.2006 was also withdrawn in January, 2008 with liberty to seek the remedy of writ petition. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Development on 15.12.2006 ( Annexure P.8). Hence the instant petition. In the written statement filed by respondent no.3 it is submitted that Industrial Plot No. E-1 which is adjoining plot No. E-2 was allotted to M/s Surjeet Industries, A 1 Industrial Estate, Malerkotla on 21.12.1968 and the allottee was required to pay the price of the plot in 6 yearly instalments starting from 6.6.1971 till 6.6.1976. On failure of the allottee to pay the above said installments a show cause notice was sent through registered post on 24.8.1978 and 15.3.1979. An opportunity was also granted to the allottee to submit his stand regarding non payment of installments but the allottee failed to appear in person but prayed for more time for making the payment of instalments. Finally the plot was resumed vide order dated 6.6.1979 conveyed on 8.6.1979 ( Annexure P.10). It is averred in the written statement that petitioner company was never allotted Plot No. E 1 nor it was ever transferred in its name by any authority. The petitioner had illegally and unauthorisedly encroached upon the said plot. After resumption, the plot vested in the State Government, thereafter in the Housing Development Board, then in PUDA and now in GLADA. The written statement has further asserted that one M/s Romex Food Products, B-XX, 216, Ghumarmandi Chowk, Ludhiana submitted an application for allotment of Plot No. E 1 (Annexure R./3/1) whereon a report was sought from the concerned Junior Engineer regarding the status of Plot No. E-1, it is only CWP No. 530 of 2008 4 then that it was learnt on inquiry from the neighbours that the said plot had been encroached upon by the owners of Plot No. E-2 as per report dated 24.8.1994 (AnnexureR./3/3). When the concerned Junior Engineer under the instructions of Estate Officer, Ludhiana went to the site of plot No. E 1 and asked the petitioner company to vacate the same, the petitioner- company undertook to vacate the plot at the earliest and sought time on 18.5.1995 (Annexure R/3/6). On 6.7.1995, the petitioner-company was again pressed to vacate the illegal and unauthorised encroachment when he undertook to vacate the plot in the first week of August, 1995 ( Annexure R/3/7). In reply to para 5 of the petition it is stated in the written statement that allottee never applied for transfer of Plot No. E 1 in the name of the petitioner. The contents of this para are absolutely concoction and an after thought supported by purportedly false and fabricated documents. It is further stated that it is beyond comprehension that if the petitioner company had purchased the said plot from its original allottee then there was no need for the petitioner to undertake to vacate the same vide letters dated 18.5.1995 and 6.7.1995. Shri S.K.Ahluwalia, one of the legal heirs of the original allottee Shri Surjit Singh in his letter 20.3.1979 had mentioned that his father had expired about four years ago though no exact date of death has been mentioned. It is urged that in view of this it was not possible for the petitioner-company to have entered into an agreement with Shri Surjit Singh on 8.4.1979. It has therefore been submitted that agreement/memorandum of sale Annexure P.3 does not appear to be genuine. It appears to be an attempt to mislead the Court on the basis of false and fabricated documents and taking self contradictory stands. In para 11 of the written statement it is stated that the petitioner company vide letter CWP No. 530 of 2008 5 dated 19.4.1993 ( Annexure R/3/12) approached the Director of Industries for the allotment of the said plot by stating that the same was lying vacant for the last 18 years and that they had come to know that the said plot has been resumed by the Government. The petitioner company vide letter dated 4.6.1994 ( Annexure R/3/13) also approached the then Chief Minister for the allotment of the plot in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the view that instant petition is a piece of vexatious and frivolous litigation. It is undisputed that plot No.E-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana was allotted in favour of M/s Surjit Industries through its partner Shri Surjit Singh on 21.12.1968 and that the adjoining plot No.E-2 was allotted to the petitioner – company on 03.08.1979. The entire consideration amount was paid and the registered sale deed in respect of plot No.E-2 was executed (Annexure P/1). There is no letter of allotment in favour of the petitioner – company in respect of industrial plot No.E-1, which was initially allotted in favour of M/s Surjit Industries through its partner Shri Surjit Singh on 21.12.1968. The allottee Shri Surjit Singh did not pay the installments resulting in issuance of show cause notice. The plot was eventually resumed on 06.06.1979 (Annexure P/10). However, it appears that the petitioner had encroached upon the said plot which after resumption had vested in the State Government. According to the report dated 24.08.1994 (Annexure R/3/3), the site of plot of E-1 was inspected. On the spot inquiry, it was found that three rooms and one hall without roof have been constructed by the original allottee and that the owners of plot No.E-2 have been using the same. The Punjab Housing Development Board addressed a letter to the Estate Officer, Urban CWP No. 530 of 2008 6 Estate, Ludhiana on 19.01.1995 (Annexure R/3/4) stating that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the plot No.E-1 and the same be got removed by taking police help, if necessary. Accordingly, the Junior Engineer sent a report to the Estate Officer that the petitioner had sought time to remove the encroachment and a letter in this connection dated 18.05.1995 (Annexure R/3/6) has been issued. Thereafter, a number of requests were received from the petitioner granting of further time. In none of these letters, which have been written on 18.05.1995 and 06.07.1995, reference to any agreement/memorandum of sale dated 08.04.1979 (Annexure P-3 and P-3A) have been disclosed or set up. There is no mention of the Will dated 12.05.1979 (Annexure P-4). What is the basis of these documents and how these documents have been created has become highly doubtful if the issue is examined in the light of the fact that respondent No.3 in its written statement has categorically taken the stand that Surjit Singh, the earlier allottee, had died before 1979. This case represents the greed of the petitioner by placing reliance on such documents which do not appear to be authentic. The petitioner has no right to the allotment of plot No.E-1 and he prima facie appears to be simply an encroacher. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the active misrepresentation made, we saddle the petitioner with cost of Rs.20,000/-. We further direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab to depute an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to hold an inquiry with a view to ascertain the authenticity of the agreement/memorandum of sale dated 08.07.1979 (Annexure P-3 and P-3A) and Will dated 12.05.1979 (Annexure P-4). The CWP No. 530 of 2008 7 inquiry must be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy thereof shall be placed on record of this Court on or before 6th April, 2009. If the findings go against the petitioner or Gopal Krishan Kothari son of Shri Ram Ji Dass Kothari or any other person, the suitable action as per law be initiated subject to further direction by this Court. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) 17.12.2008 Judge okg