ORDER
1. The petitioner is a nonresident Indian. The dispute is regarding the allotment of a plot. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The petitioner resides at Vancouver in Canada. In response to an advertisement, he applied for the allotment of a one kanat plot at S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, on March 23, 1978. Along with the application, he sent a Bank Draft drawn on the State Bank of India for an amount of 3900 Canadian Dollars which were equivalent of Rs. 26657.55 at that time. Vide letter dated September 20, 1979, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, respondent No. 2 viz. the restate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab informed the petitioner that plot No. 2032 Phasp X Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar has been earmarked and allotment letter will be issued after receiving the balance price due from you. It is requested that a Bank Draft amounting to Rs. 867.45 in foreign currency may please be sent to this office…..so
that action for allotment could be taken. Your
Bank Draft of 3900 Dollars (i.e. Rs. 26657.55)
has been received vide receipt No. 066 Book
No. 576. The petitioner avers that in com
pliance with this letter, he forwarded a Bank
Draft dated October 9, 1979 to the Estate
Officer, Urban Estates, for an amount of
134.10 Canadian Dollars which were
equivalent of Rs. 867.45. In spite of the
payment having been made, no letter of
allotment was sent to the petitioner. He avers
that in 1979 itself, he visited India and
requested the respondents for allotment and
possession of Plot No. 2032 in Phase X, SAS
Nagar, Mohali. This was followed by
repeated reminders including a request vide
letter dated February 9, 1988 to the then
Governor of Punjab. In spite of an assurance
having been conveyed through Mr. R. S.
Mann, no letter of allotment was sent to the
petitioner.
3. After a period of almost 10 years, vide letter dated March 21, 1989, respondent No. 2
informed the petitioner that “in the draw of lots held on 12-3-1989, it has been decided to allot Plot No. 587 in Sector 70, SAS Nagar, measuring 500 Sq; Yds.” The petitioner was further informed that this allotment was subject to his completing various formalities including payment of an amount of Rs. 1,26,875/- in foreign exchange “as the balance price of the plot. It is also cleared (sic) that the cost of the plot so intimated is provisional and you shall have to pay the balancers per actually fixed.” A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. In response to this lettef, the petitioner served a notice dated March 1, 1990 on the respondents. A complete sequence of events was given. The respondents were requested to send an allotment letter without charging any enhanced price in respect of Plot No. 2032, Phase X, SAS Nagar, Mohali which had been initially earmarked for the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 sent a reply to this notice vide letter dated September 11, 1990. The factual position was admitted. However, it was mentioned that the allotment letter could not be issued in view of the revision of policy by the State Government. Aggrieved by this response, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petitioner avers that “the respondent are bound to deliver possession of the Plot No. 2032, Phase 10, SAS Nagar, Mohali or as a substitute Plot No. 587, Sector 70, SAS Nagar without demanding
enhanced place.”
4. aT written statement on behalf of the
two respondents was filed by Mr: Zora Singh,
Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab. In this
written statement, a completely new stand has
been taken. It has been inter alia averred that
“on receipt of demand draft in foreign
exchange from the petitioner, the same was
sent to the Bank concerned for converting the
same in Indian currency so that the said
amount could be deposited in the Govt.
Treasury but in spite of repeated reminders,
the concerned Bank did not do the needful
with the result that the office of the answering
respondent did not get the amount deposited
in Govt. account even till today and this was
reason for the non-allotment of proposed/
earmarked plot to the petitioner.” This very
ground has been reiterated in para 6 of the written statement. It has also been averred that the Government is competent to fix/ increase the allotment price from time to time. It has also been stated that “now on the payment of the latest (latest)fixed price of the plot and conversion (collection?) thereof from the bank, the office of answering respondents is ready to allot any of the earmarked Plot No. 2032, Phase X, SAS Nagar or 587, Sector 70, SAS Nagar to the petitioner according to his Wish.”
5. The petitioner has filed a replication controverting the claim of the respondents and reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. It appears that initially, the State of Punjab through the Secretary, Urban Development and the Estate Officer, Urban Estates had been impleaded as parties. However, vide order dated October 14, 1992, even the Punjab Housing and Development Board was impleaded as respondent No. 3.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Mr. M. M. Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner has contended that the action of
the respondents is wholly arbitrary and
illegal. Mr, Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel
for respondent No. 3 has, however, contended
that mere earmarking of a plot confers no
right on a person to claim, allotment. He
further submitted that the Draft sent by the
petitioner having not yet been encashed by the
Bank, the petitioner was riot entitled to any
relief whatsoever.
8. The factual position that emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that the petitioner had initially forwarded a Bank Draft for 3900 Canadian Dollars. It was received by respondent No. 2. Its receipt was duly acknowledged vide letter dated September 18, 1979 a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The petitioner, was, however, Called upon to pay the equivalent of Rs. 867.45 so that action for allotment of a plot could be taken. This amount was also duly paid by the petitioner vide Draft dated October 9, 1979. In this situation, it is
apparent that total price of the plot had been paid by the petitioner in the year 1979 itself. That having happened and Plot No. 2032 in Phase X, SAS Nagar, Mohali having been earmarked for the petitioner, there was no reason whatsoever for the failure of the respondents to issue the letter of allotment.
9. For almost 10 years, the respondents sat over the matter. It was only vide letter dated March 21, 1989 a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition that the petitioner was informed that in the draw of lots held on March 13, 1989, it. had been decided to allot Plot No. 587 in Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali to him. He was, however, called upon to send a Bank Draft amounting to Rs. 1,26,875/ in foreign exchange “as the balance price of the plot”. On the petitioner’s protest and the issue of a notice, he was informed that the plot could not be allotted in spite of the payment in November 1979 on account of the revision of the Government policy in February 1981. This reason is wholly untenable. A policy formulated in February 1981 was of no relevance to the issue of an allotment letter in respect of the plot which had been earmarked for the petitioner in September 1979. Even a copy of the polity letter has not been produced with the written statement. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner had paid the full price of the plot in the year 1979. Plot No. 2032, Phase X, SAS Nagar, Mohali had been earmarked in his favour. In this situation, the respondents were bound to issue the letter of allotment to the petitioner. He cannot be made to suffer for the delay on the part of the respondents. He is entitled to the allotment of the plot and the handing over of the possession thereof. His rights cannot be prejudiced or affected by any subsequent revision of policy. In fact, nothing has been pointed out to show that the policy was to have a retrospective operation. In this situation, the case of the petitioner was not at all affected by any policy decision taken in February 1981. Consequently the only reason mentioned in the letter dated September 11, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition for the failure to allot Plot No. 2032, Phase X,
SAS Nagar, Mohali to the petitioner, cannot be sustained.
10. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, however, submitted that the drafts sent by the petitioner have, in fact not been encashed so far. This reason has undoubtedly been mentioned in para 2 of the written statement. Can it be correct?
11. Vide letter dated September 20, 1979, the petitioner was informed that the Bank Draft of 3900 Canadian Dollars sent by him had been received by the respondents. He was asked to send an amount of Rs.867.45 in foreign currency. He did that. Vide letter dated March 21, 1989 (a copy is at Annexure P-3 with the writ petition), the petitioner was only called upon to pay the “balance price”. This obviously meant that the amount earlier sent by him had been duly received. Still further, in response to the notice sent by the petitioned through his counsel. The payment of the amounts sent by the petitioner vide Draft dated March 23, 1978 and the subsequent payment of amount in November 1979, were duly acknowledged. It was never the case of the respondents that there was any default on the part of the petitioner. In this situation, the stand now sought to be taken, appears to be an afterthought; However, even if, it is assumed that the concerned bank has not done the needful it is a matter between the respondents and the Bank. The petitioner has nothing to do with it. He has already paid the full price.
12. Mr. Aggarwal, then contended that the mere earmarking of a plot created no right in favour of the petitioner. The contention ignores the sequence of events. The petitioner paid 3900 Canadian Dollars in March 1978, In the year 1979/he was called upon to pay a small amount, of money. He paid that. That having happened, the petitioner had paid the price of the plot. He had been informed that a plot had been earmarked for him. The indication clearly was that “allotment letter will be issued after receiving the balance price from you.” This balance price of Rs. 867.45 was duly paid by the petitioner in foreign currency. While the petitioner did his part of
the job, the respondents did not. Thus, it was
not mere earmarking of the plot. It was
coupled with a clear promise that on payment
of Rs. 867,45, the tetter of allotment shall be
issued. The respondents had no justification
for withholding this letter. The only reason
given is that there was a revision of policy.
This, as already observed, was wholly
untenable.
13. Even otherwise, the action of the respondents is clearly symbolic of the bureaucratic inefficiency. The petitioner deposited money in 1978, and 1979. After 10 years, a communication was sent, to him asking for virtually four times the amount of money that had already been deposited by him. When the petitioner protested and served a notice, the plea of a revised policy was trotted put. When he filed the writ petition, an entirely new plea was raised. To say the least, the whole sequence of events leaves a bad taste. It is bound to give a bad impression even to the Indians living abroad. In spite of their familiarity with the inefficiency of their countrymen, they are bound to feel angry. It cannot encourage them, or anyone else to think of investing in India. It does not augur well for this country. Can’t we change? Probably, no change is possible till the bureaucracy remains ‘bloated’ in its size and ego. It needs to be trimmed. It needs to be made accountable. Probably then it may get going.
The petitioner had paid 3900 Canadian Dollars in 1978 and 134.10 Dollars in 1979. On conversion, it amounted to Rs. 27,525/-. This amount has remained blocked for the last over 14 years. The petitioner was neither paid back his money nor was the plot handed over |p him. If the plot had been given to him in the year 1978-79, he would have been able to raise construction thereon. Today the same construction would cost him much more. Besides, he has Been deprived of the use and income from the property. Nothing could be more arbitrary.
Taking the totality of these circumstances into consideration, the writ petition is allowed. It appears reasonable to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of
the plot No. 2032 Phase X SAS Nagar, Mohali or Plot No. 587, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali as the petitioner may choose without charging him anything more as it is the admitted position that both these plots are still available. The needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
14. Petition allowed.
