• Allotment - Allottee of the said booth was precluded from transferring the booth without prior permission for a period of 15 years and furthermore, the lessee could not sublet the said building or any part thereof as per specific terms and conditions of the allotment - To permit the petitioner at this stage to say that as a period of 15 years has expired, therefore, the basis of the cancellation order does not survive, is unjustified, inasmuch, as it would amount to granting premium to the petitioner of his own wrongs - Person-in-default cannot be permitted to raise the plea of expiry of the stipulated period - It has been rightly observed by the Revisional Authority that the petitioner is unnecessarily raking up a dead issue after more than 19 years.  (176) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment - Policy dated 09.04.1999 which prescribes the period of condonation of delay in deposit of the 15% amount, the officer who can condone the delay and surcharge rate leviable on 15% amount - Authority who can condone the delay and also the amount of surcharge has also been specified in terms of the Policy framed but the petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of such policy - The petitioner never communicated his acceptance nor sent the amount within 30 days of the issuance of letter of allotment - Having failed to send the acceptance within 30 days, no concluded contract comes into existence.  (178) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment - Shop-cum-office - Amount of installments in the present case was payable by 1992 but the same were paid in the year 1994 in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court - The entire amount stands paid way back in the year 1995 - In view of the fact that the amount stands deposited and the building is complete, we find that order of cancellation of allotment cannot be said to be justified. (177) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment - Shop-cum-office - Amount of installments in the present case was payable by 1992 but the same were paid in the year 1994 in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court - The entire amount stands paid way back in the year 1995 - In view of the fact that the amount stands deposited and the building is complete, we find that order of cancellation of allotment cannot be said to be justified.  (177) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment of land - Cancellation - It was a case of allotment of a public property in a totally clandestine manner without considering the competing claims of other eligible persons - The petitioner appears to have manipulated to secure the allotment of a highly valuable site without allowing anyone else to compete for it - The Writ Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction will be totally reluctant to accord the seal of approval to such like back-door unholy arrangement - Petitioner is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of allotment - As may be seen, the allotment was made in the year 1991 and the record reveals that till the year 2004-2005, the site was not developed as a `green belt' for which it was `resolved' to be allotted - Contrary to it, the petitioner issued an advertisement for its sale for commercial purposes - It was a brazen attempt to mis-use the subject site in total disregard to the terms and conditions of allotment to which the petitioner agreed - Cancellation upheld.  (180) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment of Plot - Scheme of Improvement Trust, Bhatinda - Applications in 1989 for allotment  of plot - After the lapse of seven years the draw of plots was held - Eligibility - The petitioner was fulfilling the conditions of eligibility and in such a situation, the subsequent development of purchase of plot from open market would not render him ineligible for the draw of lots held in 1996, especially where no allotment was made on concessional rate from any source between the date of application and the date of draw of lots. (173) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment of Plot - That there is no policy of the Government of Haryana under the National Sterilization Scheme for allotment of plot in favour of member of gram panchayat who had undergone sterilization operation for family planning purposes - In the absence of any scheme/policy decision of the Government the allotment of the plot by resolution is illegal.        (180) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment of Sites on Lease Hold Basis to Auto Spare Parts Dealers and Auto Repair Mechanics Scheme 1999 - Scheme was aimed at rehabilitation of those auto spare part dealers and auto mechanics, who were likely to be dislodged by the official respondents in view of unhealthy environment, traffic hazards and public nuisance being created by them by carrying on their business at the premises/sites/streets wherein such business was not permitted to be carried out - To put it straight, the intent of the policy framed is to rehabilitate those auto spare part dealers and auto mechanics, who are carrying on their business in the open or at places not authorized or permitted for such use - Petitioner was carrying on business of sale of batteries - Covered under the "General Trade" - Therefore petitioner was found to be ineligible - Order upheld. (173) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment of Tenements to the Bonafide Residents of Notified Colonies - (i) That the condition in the Scheme in respect of name appearing in the bio-metric survey and in the voter list of two years prior to such survey and/or two years later cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjust & irrational. (ii) However, in addition to the voter list, the Administration shall consider the documents towards proof of residence issued under any of the Statute such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Passport Act, 1967, as a proof of residence between the years 2004 to 2008. (iii) If the finger print impressions are not available or the quality of the same is poor, the jhuggi dweller shall not be deprived for the allotment of a flat only for that reason provided the Administration establishes the identity of the applicant on the basis of such other evidence, as the Committee may consider appropriate. (178) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991, Rule 5 - Eligibility conditions - Had applied in the year 1979 - Not eligible under the 1991 Rules as was carrying on his business from Jhuggi - The licence was issued to him by Medical Officer, Chandigarh - Allotment which was made on the basis of 1979 Scheme was curtailed in the year 1990 and thereafter in  2006 - Direction given by PLA to allot him an alternate site to carry on his business is liable to be rejected - Moreover, he was provided flat under the 2006 scheme. (176) P.L.R.
  •         Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh, Rules 1991, Rule 3(C) - Building of the Day Market, Sector 42, Chandigarh with which the petitioners are concerned, presents a different scenario - Such building being a single structure containing shops and corridors within the building itself, the need was felt to provide natural light and ventilation and, accordingly, the specified design for such market was finalized by restricting the height of three walls upto 6' and fixation of IRC Jaali/wire mesh thereupon upto the ceiling - In the light of such distinction, the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners does not survive. (181) P.L.R. 
  • Allotment – Plaintiff-appellant was successful in Draw of Lots held by the Notified Area Committee and was allotted site - The plaintiff had paid certain amount and he was required to pay in total 25% of the total sale consideration - The amount was to be deposited upto 15.02.1986, whereas the amount was deposited on 17.02.1986 – There was delay of two days – Appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the Appellate Authority who condoned the delay – Exercising the powers of Appellate Authority but while signing, he somehow wrote the Arbitrator-cum-Deputy Commissioner – It was on account of mistake committed by the Notified Area Committee that the plaintiff was driven towards converting the order of Deputy Commissioner into the award of the Arbitrator and thereafter proceedings for the Rule of the Court - The Notified Area Committee (Municipal Corporation), cannot be permitted to capitalize on its own mistake. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Allotment – Respondents-Market Committee would have been justified in charging compound interest and penal interest in terms of Clause 6 of the allotment letter only if the physical possession had been handed over to the petitioner and thereafter there had been a default on his part in making the payment of balance amount - Therefore, the instant review application is allowed to the extent that we direct the applicants-petitioners (legal heirs of petitioner Jagan Nath) to pay the outstanding principal due along with simple interest @ 12.5% per annum.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Allotment/Sales - “Whether an order, cancelling the allotment/sale, which results in divesting the rights in an immovable property can be passed by the government officials, without service of personal notice to the owners?” – Proclamation carried out in the village where the property is situated would not be sufficient once it is to the knowledge of the officials that owners do not reside in the village – If the Government was of the considered view that personal service is not possible, it should have served through publishing a notice in the newspaper - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5, Rule 20. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991 – Notification Condition 22 – She had right to claim by inheritance and by the fact that for long years she did business from the Rehri in place of her husband, her physical condition permitting - She had sufficiently explained her physical absence on the day of surprise inspection - It is not the case that the agents of the Screening Committee visited the site over a period of time and found her absence successively during those visits - It is not the case of the appellant that reasonable opportunity was given to the stake-holders - One day’s absence is not enough to deprive the plaintiff of her right for transfer of  handcart license in her name even when transfer cases were entertained and allowed.  (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.