CWP No. 2348 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 2348 of 1994 Date of decision: 15.07.2011 Harnek Singh Joshi ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate with Mr. M S Joshi, Advocate , Advocate for the petitioner Ms Harman Sullar, AAG, Punjab. for the respondent State Mr. Amit Rawal Advocate for respondent Corporation -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the amount mentioned in allotment letter No. PSEIEG/EW/ED/5305 dated 25.09.1987 as the matter has been finalized by Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1990 and also to direct the respondents to deliver the possession of the industrial plot No. 22 CWP No. 2348 of 1994 2 allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter (P5). Respondent No. 2 - Punjab Small Scales Industries and Export Corporation Limited invited applications vide advertisement (P1) appearing in the Tribune on 23.01.1984 for allotment of freehold industrial plots in Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali under the Self Finance Scheme. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his application form for allotment of plot in the month of March 1984 along with requisite fee i.e. 10% of tentative price of the plot well within time after fulfilling all the formalities. Along with the said application, the petitioner also submitted complete and detailed project reports for setting up an industrial Unit which the petitioner supposed to set up in case the plot was allotted to him. Thereafter, as per Government Instructions, Allotment Committee was constituted and Technical Committee was also constituted which studied the project report submitted by the petitioner and approved the same. In draw of lot, a plot No. 22 was allotted to the petitioner and intimation in that regard was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner received registered allotment letter dated 29.09.1987 and he was asked to deposit balance 40% to make the total 50% of the total price of the plot within 30 days to enable the respondent-Corporation to deliver the possession of the plot. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner deposited a draft amounting to Rs.15,296/- being 40% of the balance payment to make 50% of the price of the plot in terms of the allotment letter (P5). In the month of March, 1987, the petitioner received a letter No. PSIEC/EW/1790 dated 21.10.1987 (P7) from the respondent-Corporation, informing him that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the finalization of allotment and it is not CWP No. 2348 of 1994 3 possible to accept the payment and requested not to make any other payment towards the allotment of said plot till further order. The non- allottees had challenged the allotment by way of filing various writ petitions. The said writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 02.06.1989 passed in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 and in other connected cases. Learned Single Judge quashed the allotment of plots to other persons like the petitioner who were not a party to those writ petitions. Thereafter, the allotment made in favour of the present petitioner was cancelled. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 02.06.1989, afresh advertisement was got published inviting applications for allotment of Industrial Plots in Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The original allottees like the present petitioner challenged the said advertisement inviting fresh applications for allotment of industrial plots vide various writ petitions including the main CWP No. 3310 of 1990. The said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.01.1994 and the judgment dated 02.06.1989 passed in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 and other connected cases, whereby, the allotment of the industrial plots made in favour of different persons like the present petitioner was held to be ineffective so far as the rights of those petitioners who had filed the various writ petition are concerned. The operative part of the judgment dated 13.01.1994 reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the Corporation very fairly stated at the Bar that allotment of plots in favour of the petitioners was not given effect to in view of the judgments rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 and other connected writ petitions. He says that since the allotment in favour of the CWP No. 2348 of 1994 4 petitioners had been cancelled, the corporation could not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment under which the possession has to be delivered to the petitioners on deposit of 50% of the tentative sale price of the plot. He further submits that the allotment in favour of the petitioners suffers from no infirmity. We are constrained to observe that the Corporation did not bring correct facts to the notice of the learned Judge dispensing of CWP No. 6698 of 1987 and the connected writ petitions. Be that as it may, the judgment rendered in CWP 6698 of 1987 and the other connected writ petitions does not dis-entitle the present petitioners from enforcing the terms and conditions of their allotment letters. The petitioners have complied with the terms and conditions of allotment and a valid contract had come into existence between them and the Corporation which can only be avoided in accordance with law and not otherwise. The contract between the petitioners and the Corporation has not been assailed by any of the parties and, in fact, the Corporation does not dispute that a valid contract had come into existence between them. For the reasons stated above, we allow these writ petitions and hold that judgment dated June 2, 1989 rendered in CWP 6698 of 1987 and the connected writ petitions whereby the allotment of industrial plots made in favour of different persons like the petitioners was cancelled will be ineffective so far as the rights of the petitioners are concerned. The Corporation is directed to make allotment of industrial plots to the petitioners as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the letters of allotment. However, it is made clear that the Corporation will be entitled to claim additional price for the plots on account of enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the very fair stand taken by the CWP No. 2348 of 1994 5 counsel for the Corporation, we make no order as to costs.” The petitioner, on coming to know that the earlier judgment passed in CWP 6698 of 1987 and other connected cases had been set aside and the original allottees have been restored their industrial plots, immediately filed the present writ petition on 09.02.1994 praying for the same relief as was granted to the petitioners in various writ petitions (CWP 3310 of 1990 and other connected cases) vide judgment dated 13.01.1994. While disputing the claim of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has raised the following arguments. Firstly, the petitioner was not entitled for restoration of the industrial plot as the allotment was quashed vide judgment dated 22.06.1989 passed in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 and other connected cases and he filed the present writ petition after a lapse of seven years; Secondly, the plot in question has already been allotted to some body else and the money was also returned to the petitioner vide letter (P7) and the petitioner has never approached them till date. Lastly, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgment rendered in the case of CWP No. 3310 of 1990 as he was not one of the petitioners in that case and relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmakajaya Raju and others reported as (2006) 1 SCC 212, to state that the judgment was not a judgment in rem as the petitioner was not a party. Heard. The facts are not disputed. It is rather admitted that the petitioner was allotted an industrial plot in a draw of lots held in the year CWP No. 2348 of 1994 6 1987. It is also not disputed that the respondents vide their letter (P7) informed the petitioner that Hon’ble the Punjab and Haryana High Court had stayed the finalization of allotment and therefore, he should not make any payment towards the allotment of the industrial plot till further order. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation remained silent and did not inform the petitioner of any further orders. The judgment restoring the industrial plots to the original allottees like the present petitioner is of dated 13.01.1994. The petitioner, immediately, filed the present writ petition on 09.02.1994. Till 13.01.1994, the possession of the industrial plots had not been handed over either to the original allottees or the subsequent petitioners in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 who had challenged the allotment and nor to the petitioners whose writ petitions were allowed vide judgment dated 13.01.1994. As such, the status with regard to the allotment and possession of the industrial plots was identical up till 13.01.1994 qua the present petitioner and the petitioners in CWP 3310 of 1990 and other connected cases which were decided vide judgment dated 13.01.1994. The petitioner filed the present petition immediately on 09.02.1994. As such, objection of delay cannot be sustained. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner never approached the respondent Corporation during all this period, is not fair in view of their own letter (P7), vide which, the petitioner was told not to deposit any amount till further orders and in view of the writ petition having been filed by the petitioner in 1994 itself praying for the said relief. Moreover, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the tentative price of the plot along with its application. The fact is not denied. CWP No. 2348 of 1994 7 There is nothing on record to show that the said amount was ever returned to the petitioner. Like in Civil Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1990 and other connected cases, learned counsel for the Corporation admits that the allotment in favour of the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the case of the respondents that the allotment of the petitioner was not valid. Rather, he fulfills all the conditions of allotment and that the project report had been approved by the Technical Committee and was allotted plot. The petitioner had submitted a draft amounting to Rs.15,296 being 40% of the balance payment to make 50% of the price of the plot in terms of the allotment letter (P5) but the respondent Corporation had refused to accept the same on the ground of the pendency of the writ petitions. The petitioner was directed not to deposit any amount till further orders. No further order was communicated to the petitioner. The 10% of the tentative price was deposited with the form which was still lying with the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately filed the present writ petition immediately after the judgment dated 13.01.1994 passed in CWP No. 3310 of 1990 and other connected cases. As such, the Apex Court's judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation in the case of Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju (supra) does not help the respondent-Corporation in the facts of the present case. The case of the petitioner is no different from the writ petitioners in CWP No. 3310 of 1990 and therefore, he cannot be discriminated for no fault of his. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms as Civil Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1990, decided on CWP No. 2348 of 1994 8 13.01.1994. However, in case, the particular plot is not available, the respondent-Corporation shall allot any other alternative plot in lieu of the same to the petitioner at some other Industrial Focal Point in SAS Nagar Mohali. Allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 15.07.2011 mohan