Court dismissed petitioner's civil writ petition regarding residential plot allotment cancelled due to non-payment. It held non-payment negates claim to the specific plot. If vacancies exist, authority may allot another plot at market price if legally permissible.
Petition disposed of; no specific relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.30232 of 2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.30232 of 2018 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2018
Rattan Singh
PETITIONER
VERSUS
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority and others
... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Present:Shri Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner was initially allotted a plot which was cancelled on account of non-payment of the requisite amount on 20.7.2016, against which he preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority noticed that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the letter of intent and faltered in depositing the requisite amount for seeking extension to do so. The appeal was also rejected on 12.10.2016 and the petitioner has approached this Court two years thereafter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority himself had permitted him to deposit the penal interest which would amount to condoning the lapse.
We are afraid, no such interpretation can be placed, as the deposit of the amount contrary to the terms of letter of intent would not ipso facto give rise
GHANSHYAM DASS 2018.12.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh
C.W.P. No.30232 of 2018 -2-
to any right to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority would be bound to decide the matter in accordance with law which he did. Be that as it may, non payment and then staking a claim to a plot assume negative significance as occasionally it may result in a third-party right and expose the petitioner to the charge of being a mere speculator not in an actual need of the plot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the petitioner had deposited an amount of more than Rs.9 lacs, an amount of Rs.5 lacs has been refunded to him. He further contends that plots are lying vacant.
If that be so, the competent authority may look into the issue and in case the petitioner submits his claim for allotment of a plot, he may be given some other plot on payment of the current market price, if otherwise permissible in law and subject to availability.
Disposed of .
( MAHESH GROVER ) JUDGE
( LALIT BATRA ) November 30, 2018 JUDGE GD Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No
GHANSHYAM DASS 2018.12.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to the plot after non-payment of requisite amount.
Whether refund of deposited amount gives petitioner right to claim allotment of another plot.
Rattan Singh
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority
Mahesh Grover
Lalit Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
