Loss of records no ground to deny allotment to successful applicant: High Court

Nearly 26 years after an applicant was declared successful in a draw of lots, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the loss of original records cannot be a ground to deny allotment of a residential plot to him.

Holding that the denial amounted to prima facie commissions of “the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance”, a Division Bench directed the release of “exemplary compensation comprised in a sum of Rs 2 lakh,” payable by the respondent concerned to the petitioner.

The direction came after the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri was told that the petitioner had been deprived of his rightful claim due to missing records, even though he was declared successful decades ago. The court held that such a lapse on part of the authorities could not override the applicant’s legal entitlement.

The Bench observed that petitioner-applicant Gurcharan Singh was declared successful in a draw of lots held in 1999 and had deposited earnest money as far back as 1982. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of “promissory estoppels” and “legitimate expectation”. His claim was backed by photocopies of registration and payment documents, which were never disputed as fake.

After hearing advocate GPS Bal for the petitioner and the rival contentions, the Bench observed that Gurcharan Singh – a Haryana resident – had applied for a 125-square-yard plot under a 1982 Ludhiana Town Improvement Trust scheme. He was allotted a plot through a draw held on September 10, 1999. But he was neither informed about the draw nor the allotment. In 2000, the Trust cancelled all 19 allotments made through that draw, citing loss of original records.

The Bench also took note of the argument that the petitioner learnt about the allotment from a local contact and approached the Trust, which subsequently resolved in 2012 to restore the plot in his favour. However, this decision was overturned by the Local Bodies Department in 2015 without any proof of document falsification.

The Bench sharply criticised the department’s action, terming the rejection “ridden with vice of non-application of mind.” The court also made it clear that the department had no authority to reject the Trust’s restoration resolution, especially after it had earlier recommended reconsideration.

The Bench added that the petitioner had submitted his application along with Rs 950 earnest money in November 1982.

The court concluded that the success in the draw could not be annulled nor could the physical possession of the plot be denied. It directed restoration of the allotment in the petitioner’s favour.

“The respondents are directed to re-allot the plot in the petitioner’s favour within three months hereafter, along with physical possession thereof being also delivered to him,” the court concluded.

Punjab