IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1058 of 1987 Date of decision: 03 .02.2010 Darshinder Pal Kaur ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The claim for allotment to a property in response to an advertisement has survived through this writ petition for a period of a generation. The desire to hold a property never wears off. The petitioner’s father Swaran Singh had applied in general category for allotment of a plot in Samrala Road, Ludhiana in response to an advertisement issued by the Public Housing Authority in Ludhiana in July 1981. The advertised plot was in an extent of 150 square yards apiece and the earnest money of Rs.3,000/- had also been sent. The issue of allotment appears to have been taken on draw of lots but the petitioner’s husband did not obtain the benefit of the draw. He had Civil Writ Petition No.1058 of 1987 - 2 - expired in October 1985. It appears a larger plot of 250 sq.yards was offered in the next advertisement proposed to be developed in another place in Dugari road. The earnest money called for was Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner had responded to the advertisement and had sent Rs.2,000/- treating the amount already paid by her father as going to her credit as well. The authorities had their own reasons to reject the petitioner’s plea out of consideration, treating that the earnest money already paid by her husband was not adjustable. On a third occasion, when an advertisement was issued for development of a lay out in the same place at Samrala road in which place the first advertisement was to make the allotments, the petitioner had applied again on 31.05.1986. The earnest money payable was Rs.6,000/- and giving herself credit of Rs.5,000/- already paid by her father and by herself, the petitioner had made a further deposit of Rs.1,000/-. It appears that at the time when the consideration for allotment was made, the authority found that there was no proper proof for considering as eligible as an heir to the first application Swaran Singh. The authorities had asked for some certificate of proof for heirship and it was transferred in the name of the petitioner and other heirs only on 20.02.1987. In the meanwhile the draw of lots for the third offer had been concluded on 08.10.1986 itself. It would thus be seen that on the first occasion, the petitioner’s father was not amongst the successful persons in the draw; at the second instance, the payment made by her father had not been found as adjustable against the earnest money to be deposited and on the third occasion, the allotment had already been made before obtaining proof that the petitioner could consider herself as Civil Writ Petition No.1058 of 1987 - 3 - a heir to her father and all the legal heirs had already been registered on the records. 2. It is now a pleaded on behalf of the State that there is no plot which is available for general category. It is also contended by the petitioner that there is a provision for allotment under general category, if the plots reserved under the special category of army personnel and persons belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes have not been exhausted. The response to this by the Government is that the petitioner had applied only in the general category and all the allotments of the general category have been made and there are no plots available. This still does not answer the question whether there are any plots available for the reserved categories which could be transferred to the general category. From the time when the offer was made in the year 1981 more than two decades have passed and it shall not be possible to examine the plea of the petitioner now. A mere advertisement for offer of sale itself will not grant any legal right to demand an allotment. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any relief in this writ petition except a direction contained through this order that if there are still any plots available in the lay out, the petitioner’s case could be considered and an allotment made at the present market rate, after adjusting the amount of Rs.6,000/- that had been paid by the petitioner’s father and the petitioner herself and crediting her with interest at 9% from the respective dates when the deposits were made. This exercise of a fresh consideration in the event of availability of plots shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. If however, no plot is available, the Civil Writ Petition No.1058 of 1987 - 4 - respondents 2 and 3 shall communicate about the lack of availability and refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs.6,000/- with interest at 9% from the respective dates when the amount had been received by the authorities till the date of payment. This exercise shall be undertaken and the money paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 3. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. ` (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.02.2010. sanjeev