Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea for Allotment of Plot, Rules Applicants Must Reapply Under New Advertisement to Claim Consideration

Case Name: Smt. Kartar Kaur (Deceased) through LRs Amrik Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CWP No. 13613 of 1991
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hari Pal Verma

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Ropar Improvement Trust to allot residential plots under the Bela Road Development Scheme, holding that unsuccessful applicants under an earlier scheme cannot claim automatic consideration in a subsequent one without reapplying pursuant to a fresh advertisement. The Division Bench ruled that the note in the public notice clearly required all previous applicants to submit new applications, and that mere submission of an earlier form or consent letter did not confer a vested right to allotment. The Court reiterated that under settled law, an application for allotment gives only a right of consideration, not a right to allotment, and that the public advertisement process must be followed to ensure transparency and fairness.

Summary: The petitioners had applied in 1989 for residential plots under the Bela Road Development Scheme Part-I, Ropar—250 square yards by petitioner No.1 and 420 square yards by petitioner No.2. Both were unsuccessful in the draw held on October 23, 1989. Later, they consented to inclusion in the next Bela Road Part-II Scheme. When a new advertisement dated July 4, 1991 (Annexure P-9) was issued inviting fresh applications for Bela Road Part-II and Bela Road Scheme-I, Dashmesh Nagar, they did not reapply, asserting that their earlier consent entitled them to automatic consideration. The Trust contended that the advertisement specifically required all unsuccessful applicants of Part-I to submit new applications, and that petitioner No.2 had already been refunded the earnest money.

Justice Hemant Gupta, speaking for the Bench, held that the petitioners’ claim was untenable as the note in the advertisement was clear, categorical, and unambiguous—that all unsuccessful applicants from Bela Road Part-I had to reapply. The Court rejected the argument that the note applied only to those who had not given consent, observing that the public advertisement process is mandatory for all fresh allotments. Referring to the Full Bench ruling in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 81 PLR 413, the Court reaffirmed that filing an application gives an applicant only a right to consideration, not an enforceable right to allotment, and that the method of drawing lots through public notice is valid and non-discriminatory.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners had no enforceable right to claim allotment without submitting fresh applications under the new advertisement. It directed that any amount still retained by the Improvement Trust be refunded to petitioner No.1 within two months, along with 9% interest from the date of deposit till payment.