Allowed

Kuldip Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2011CWP/18037/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing the State Government's order denying permission for allotment of additional land at the scheduled rate. The Court directed the State to accord approval at the original Collector's rate and ordered the Trust to deliver possession within one month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 4.9.2009 is quashed. The State Government is directed to approve the allotment at the original Collector's rate. The respondent-Trust is directed to hand over possession withi

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18037 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 01, 2011.

Kuldip Kaur

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶15

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-13) passed by the State of Punjab declining permission to the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar for allotment of additional area of 64.3 square yard in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per marla.

¶16

2] Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was allotted plot No.103 measuring 250 square yard vide allotment letter dated 18.6.1998 by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in the Scheme known as '94.5 acres Scheme'. The said plot was allotted for a total sum of Rs.6,39,375/- which the petitioner has admittedly deposited by 25.10.2001. The respondent-Trust, however, could not deliver the possession of the

¶17

C.W.P.No .18037 of 2009 2

¶18

allotted plot as its area was less than 225 square yards, therefore, an alternative plot No.146 measuring 250 square yards was allotted to the petitioner vide memo dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) on the same terms and conditions.

¶19

3] The possession of the aforesaid plot has also been denied to the petitioner, this time on the plea that the actual size of the plot at the spot is 314.3 square yards which is 64.3 square yards more than the allotted size of 250 square yards and that unless the allottee deposits the price for this additional piece of land, the possession cannot be delivered to her.

¶20

4] The petitioner agreed to pay the price @ Rs.75,000/- per marla for the additional area of 64.3 square yards, namely, at the Collector's rate which was also the rate on which the plot measuring 250 square yards was allotted to her. On receipt of the petitioner's consent, the Jalandhar Improvement Trust vide its memo dated 21.6.2006 (Annexure P-6) wrote to the State Government to accord its approval for the allotment of additional land to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per marla as the said small area was neither a part of the green belt nor a separate plot could be carved out of it. The relevant part of the letter dated 21.6.2006 reads as follows:-

¶21

“.....Here, it is clarified that the area of the plot is increased from 250 square yards to 314.03 square yards meaning thereby area has been increased by 64.3 square yards. This area is neither a part of green belt nor a separate plot can be made, so permission be given to allot

¶22

C.W.P.No .18037 of 2009 3

¶23

this additional area at the Collector rate, i.e., Rs.75,000/per marla....”

¶24

5] The usual red-tapism kept being the hallmark, the petitioner was conveyed no decision by the Trust or the State Government. She then approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.12217 of 2008 which was disposed vide order dated 19.6.2009 with a direction to the State Government to take a decision in the matter. Pursuant thereto that the impugned order dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-13) has been passed by the State Government declining the permission for allotment of the additional area to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per marla, namely, the Collector's rate, as according to the State Government, the petitioner be asked to pay the price of the additional area “@ 1½ time of the prevalent market price of the District Collector...”. The 'current market price' is stated to be more than Rs.4,00,000/- per marla.

¶25

6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. The facts are not in dispute. The State Government has not come forward with its reply-affidavit despite several opportunities even though it was made clear on 16.2.2011 that in the event of non-filing of the reply/affidavit before the adjourned date, the defence of the State Government shall be deemed to have been struck off.

¶26

7] In my considered view, the impugned order passed by the State Government can safely be termed as an abuse of administrative powers as well as the non-application of mind. It is an admitted fact that the small piece of land abutting the petitioner's plot is neither a part of the

¶27

C.W.P.No .18037 of 2009 4

¶28

green belt nor a separate plot can be carved out of it. The petitioner was interested and allotted way back in the year 1998 a plot measuring 250 square yards only, the possession where of has not been delivered to her from last more than 12 years. As noticed earlier, firstly the possession was not delivered as the actual size of the plot was less than 250 square yards and second time the possession has been denied on the pretext that the actual size of the plot is more than 250 square yards. It simply suggests as to how the petitioner has been subjected to mental as financial harassment as costs of construction has multiplied many folds during these long years. The impugned order does not reveal any rationale as to how the petitioner is liable to pay the today's current market price when the allotment was made to her in the year 1998 and re-allotment in the year 2006. The petitioner does not want the additional area free of cost nor she wanted a plot bigger than 250 square yards. The fact that the Improvement Trust agreed to allot the additional area to the petitioner at the Collector's rate, as it prevailed in 1998, fortifies the stand taken by the petitioner that should the additional area not given to her, it will be a sheer wastage of the public land as the small open space cannot be utilized by the respondents for any other purpose. A little prudence shown by the Improvement Trust has been mechanically derailed by the State Government.

¶29

8] For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-13) is quashed and the State Government is directed to accord its necessary approval for the allotment of the additional area to the petitioner at the same rate on which the

¶30

C.W.P.No .18037 of 2009 5

¶31

original plot measuring 250 square yards has been allotted to her. The respondent-Improvement Trust is directed to hand-over possession of the plot to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that no interest shall be charged from the petitioner for the price of the additional land till the actual possession is delivered to her.

¶32

9] The official representing the State Government and present in Court has persuaded the Court to take a lenient view and not to impose the costs.

¶33

10] Dasti.

¶34

April 01, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Kuldip Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldip Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhura Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Subhash Lubricant Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gian Parkash Vs Deputy Collector & Ors.

Bhai Harjit Singh Vs S.G.P.C. and Ors.

Major Singh Vs Pspc Ltd. and Anr.