Land allotment in 48 hours arbitrary: SC

The land allotment was made in the year 1987.

A bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar gave their judgement while dismissing the appeal of Fuljit Kaur who challenged the Punjab Government’s decision to seek an additional Rs 2.19 lakh over and above the Rs 93,000 “provisional” amount fixed for a 400 sq yds plot in Sector 70 of SAS Nagar.

In the present case,the administration on the basis of an application made by Kaur on Feburary 23,1987,alloted her within two day the residential plot in Urban Estates,SAS Nagar,Punjab by a letter dated February 25,1987.

In the allotment letter,it was made clear that as proper calculation could not be made and tentative price had not been determined,the allottee had to deposit provisional price of Rs. 93000/- in four instalments upto 15.10.1989.

Subsequently,through a letter dated 25.03.1992,additional demand of Rs. 2,19,000/- was made. However,instead of depositing the said amount,Kaur challenged the demand which was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court following which she moved the Supreme Court.

Interpreting the rules,the apex court said the authorities had rightly sought the additional money as the initial amount was only provisional in nature.

“It may be pertinent to mention here that the allotment had been made to the appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application though in ordinary cases,it takes about a year.

“The appellant had further been favoured to pay the aforesaid provisional price of Rs. 93,000/- in four instalments in two years,as is evident from the letter dated 8.4.1987. Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution,” the apex court Said.

The court rejected the argument of Kaur that the high court had in an earlier decision quashed the demand notice and hence she was entitled to similar relief.

Her counsel claimed that otherwise it would amount to violation of Article 14 (equality before law) “Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept.

Equality is a trite,which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore,cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner.

“If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum,others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order,” the court observed.

The Bench said a wrong order in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.

“Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make functioning of the administration impossible.

“Thus,even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake,such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief,” the court said.