Directorate of Local Government Department Punjab
(General Branch)
ORDER
Subject:- Compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 19.03.2010 passed in C.W.P. No. 4884 of 2010--- Parmod Kumar versus State of Punjab and others-----
On receipt of the certified copy of the judgment passed in the above referred Civil Writ Petition by the Hon’ble High Court, it emerged that Hon’ble High Court has disposed of the writ petition at motion hearing with a direction to the Respondent No. 2 (Director, Local Govt. department, Punjab) to consider and take appropriate action on the Legal Notice dated 11/11/2009 of the petitioner within eight weeks of the receipt of certified copy of the order.
In the Legal Notice, Annexure P/5, the petitioner has mainly contended that:-
(i) The petitioner was allotted shop-cum-flat no. 313 in scheme no. 3, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Phagwara on 03.06. 1980.
(ii) The Trust failed to provide the basic amenities in the area and accordingly vide letter dated 09th July 1999, the petitioner requested the Trust in this regard;
(iii) That petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 17th September 1999, by the Phagwara Improvement Trust, (herein after referred as “PIT”) and a direction was given to complete the construction by 31st December 1999 and deposit the balance payment;
(iv) That later on vide order dated 18th February 2000, the allotment of Shop Cum flat was resumed but the petitioner submitted a request to deposit all the charges;
(v) That on 30th January, 2004 the petitioner apprised the PIT of the irregularities and deficiencies in the cancellatin order dated 18.02. 2000.;
(vi) Again on 20th May 2005, the petitioner applied for deposit of the remaining allotment amount and requested to issue the details thereof;
(vii) The Trust vide letter dated 14th June 2005 directed the petitioner to meet the Chairman of the “PIT” and when the petitioner met the Chairman, no detail of the amount was given; And
(viii) That the petitioner then was compelled to issue the Legal Notice under reference and also referred therein the Govt./ letter dated 14th January 2005 as regards the guidelines in the case of resumption of the allotted plots, But no action has been taken.
All the record relating to the allotment as well as resumption of the allotted Shop-cum flat no. 313, Secheme no. 3, shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Phagwara was in the legal custody of the Phagwara Improvement trust, Phagwara before the “PIT” was directed to send the case record. Further, in the interest of natural justice, the petitioner was also called for personal haring in respect of his claim made in the legal Notice dated 11.11. 2009., initaially the petitioner appeared on 09th July 2010 but requested for a short adjournment and accordingly the hearing was fixed for 16th July 2010 and then the again for 22nd July 2010.
The petitioner as well as the Executive officer, Improvement Trust, Phagwara were heard on 22nd July 2010 and the case record has also been perused.
The Executive officer, PIT has explained that Shop cum flat under reference was allotted in open auction on 28th May 1980. The auction in favour of petitioner was confirmed vide resolution no. 89 dated 03rd June 1980 by the “PIT”. The Scheme No 3 of PIT was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court order dated 25.02.1982 and accordingly the “PIT” deferred the receipt of sale consideration amount from the allottees of the scheme no. 3. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.10.1990 was pleased to set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court and in pursuance of this development, the PIT vide letter dated 18th December 1990 followed by letter dated 06th February 1992, directed the petitioner to deposit the balance sale amount and also take possession of the allotted site. The possession of the allotted site was taken by the petitioner from the PIT on 10th Aptil 1992. On 16th June 19998, the PIT vide a letter directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs 101255/- and also complete the construction after getting the building plan approved before 31st December 1998. No action was taken by the petitioner and accordingly a Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.99 was sent to the petitioner to explain the reasons for disobeying the direction dated 16.06.1998. On the other hand, the petitioner and other allottees of plot/ land situated in the scheme no. 3 filed a CWP No. 7664 of 1999, In the Hon’ble High Court inter alia praying that the basic services have not been provided in the area, but the High Court refused any relief except that the “PIT” shall dispose of the claim of the petitioners and take appropriate decision. The petitioner was then called for personal hearing on 20th July 1999 and then vide letter dated 22nd July 1999, the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount and complete the construction by 31st December 1999. However, the petitioner again vide letter dated 27.12.1999 requested the “PIT” that once Ashok Kumar, the allottee of plot in Scheme no. 3 has filed a Civil Writ petition in the High Court and his decision may be awaited The Government vide letter dated 03.12.1999 has already instructed the Trusts to take penal action of resumption of sites situated in all the Trust schemes, against the defaulter allottees. In the backdrop, the PIT vide letter no. 220 dated 18th February 2000, intimated to the petitioner that the site no. 313 in scheme no 3 stands resumed. At this stage, the petitioner has submitted his application dated 27th March 2000 to take lenient view and in furtherance of this request, the PIT vide letter dated 14th January 2005 directed the petitioner that in pursuance of the Govt. policy dated 26th October 2004, it has been decided to grant one more opportunity to deposit the due amount within 30 days of the issuance of letter of revival of allotment and complete the construction, therefore, the petitioner may meet the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Phagwara. Thereafter vide resolution no. 11 dated 14th February, 2005, the Trust resolved to confirm the action conveyed vide letter dated 14th January 2005 and also to authorize the Chairman, PIT to revive the allotment of the resumed plots and thyen to intimate the Trust. The Govt., however has stayed the implementation of resolution dated 14.02.2005, 26.05.05, 25.11.2005, 24.11.2006 and 12.10.2009, therefore unless the stay ordered by the Govt. is vacated, no further action can be taken. However, if stay is vacated, as sum of Rs 10, 68,083/- shall be recoverable from the petitioner up to 31.12.2010.
From the above stated facts, it is apparent that the site of Shop-cum-flat bearing no. 313, shcheme no. 3 was allotted to the petitioner by the “PIT” on 03.06.1980. It sia slo undisputed that “PIT” resumed the allotted site on 18th February 2000 under intimation to the petitioner and prior thereto, the petitioner along with other allotttees of land/ plot in scheme no. 3 had filed civil writ petition no. 7664 of 1999 in the Hon’ble High Court interalia praying that the demand of the non construction fee (extension fee) by the PIT is bad because the PIT has not provided the basic services in the area. The Hon’ble High Corut has disposed of the civil writ petition on 02 September 1999 filed by the petitioner with the following observations:-
“We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned Counsels. A persusal of the letter )Annexure P/1 along with CWP No. 7719 of 1999) issued in favour of Sarwan Singh Son of Sh. Lachman Singh shows that the allottee was required to complete the construction within three years of th date of issuance of the allotment letter after getting the demarcation and after getting the plan of the proposed building approved. From the record of the petitions it is not borne out as to when the petitioners had sought demarcation of the plots and when they applied for approval of the building plan. That apart6, they have neither pleaded nor have produced any document before the court to show that while taking the possession of the plots they had pointed out that the area is undeveloped and therefore they will not be able to raise construction. For the first time such grievance it appears to have been made in the representation which they submitted after the receipt of the notices issued by the Executive officer of the Trust requiring them to deposit the amount of extension fee.
In the above mentioned factual matrix of the case, we don not consider it appropriate to invalidate the notices issued by the Trust but at the same time we consider ti necessary to direct the Chairman of the Trust to examine the representations submitted by the petitioners alongwith the record of the Trust and take appropriate decision their request that the extension fee be not charged from them because the earea of ths scheme has not been developed.”
Therefore, when the petitioner has not produced any document to proved that in furtherance of the order dated 02.09.09 of her Hon’ble High Court, the “Trust”has accepted the demand of the petitioner in respect of non charging of the extension fee, it is impliedly apparent that such demand did not find any favour with the Trust, It is otherwise settled practice that if the Hon’ble Court has taken cognizance and decided any claim of the parties, the executive always honour such decision than again opening and deciding the issue in executive proceedings, therefore, the petitioner is estopped form agitating that failure of the petitioner to complete the construction on the allotted site is owing to non providing of the basic facilities, such as water supply, sewerage and roads in the area. In the letter dated 26th July 2010 sent by PIT to the Govt., it is purported stand that the decision conveyed vide letter dated 14.01.2005 by “PIT” to the petitioner to grant one more opportunity to petitioner To deposit all the due amount within 30 days of issuance of letter of revival of allotment is in furtherance of the compliance of Government policy instruction circulated vide no 8/73/04-5LG2/18369 dated 26th April 2004 and that this decision dated 14.01.2005, A close reading of the Govt. policy dated 26th October 2004 reveals that Govt. has observed that there being no policy for sale of resumed site, even after the passing of the resumption order, the defaulter allottee remain extremely complacent for restoration, therefore, the Govt. in supersession of all previous instructions on subject has decided that Trusts may grant two effective opportunities of haring to the defaulter allottee within a period of three months before penal action of “resumption” is taken and if the defaulter fails to comply within the said period, the order of resumption may be passed and the amount deposited by defaulter towards the sale consideration forfeited and that the resumed site sold within two months so that Trust may not be complacent to allot the plot to the defaulter allottee. It is referable that all Govt. instructions unless otherwise provides therein are always effective prospectively. Further in these instructions dated 26th October 2004 ibid, it is no where held that the “Trust” shall re-open the cases in which the final action of resumption has already been completed. Therefore, the decision conveyed by the Chairman, “PIT”, to the petitioner vide letter dated 14th January 2005 was incorrect, bad and void-ab-initio as Chairman, Improvement Trust, Phagwara has no power under the Act or the rules to reopen an already decided case of resumption of site. It is also referable here that under the PTI Act, 1922, the Government exercises full supervision and control over the Trusts and in the discharge of this duty, is empowered to annul, modify or rescind any decision of “Trust” or its officer/ officials, if the same is contrary to the law and rules. As per the Rules of the Business of the State read along with the standing orders issued by the Department of Government, the powers of the Government in relation to the “Trusts” vests with the Minister-in-charge, Local Government department, therefore, the undersigned cannot take final decision on resolution no. 11 dated 14.02.2005 passed by the “PIT”. Concluding, when the implementation of the Trust resolution no. 11 dated 14th February 2005 stands stayed by the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the Legal Notice Dated 11.11.2009 is decided as per above. It is however also held that in case, the Government finally accords approval to PIT resolution no. 11 dated 14.02.2005, this order shall not come in the way and the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government order.
A copy of this order may be sent to the Secretary, Local Government Department with the request that the final decision on resolution no. 11 dated 14th February, 2005 may kindly be taken so that the claim of the petitioner for revival of allotment is finally decided.
A copy of this order may also be sent to the petitioner for information.
Dated:
(S.K. Sharma, IAS.)
Director.
=============================================================================
Sir,
One of my friend had filed writ petition. The director Local Govt. has decided as per his appeal. My plot has also been resumed by The Improvement Trust. Kindly suggest the way out. My hearing before the State inforamation commission is due. From the last 8 months I could not get information from Director, Local Government. He has not provided inforamtion to me that what is the status of my complaint and what action taken on my application.
Kindly suggest the next course of action.
Regards,
Rajneesh madhok
