The Ludhiana Gurunanak Cooperative House Building Society, Registered Vs. the State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - vide resolution dated october 31, 1974 the case of petitioner was recommended to the state government for exemption. during the pendency of that suit, it also made representation to the state government and to the secretary, local self department, chandigarh seeking justice and directions to the offices concerned to exempt its remaining land as well as to allot plots in lieu thereof. if the documents produced by the society at flag 'a' and 'b' are authentic then this society had become owner in the revenue record well before the date on which compensation was paid. yards as well. 320za in the model town extension part-ii, ludhiana in favour of baljinder kumar and the same was kept reserved for him vide letter dated may 2,1991, annexure r-2. it was done as petitioner did not withdraw pending court case within 15 days of issuance of letter, annexure p-10, dated january 16, 1991. baljinder kumar filed an application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure for impleading him as defendant in the civil suit which was allowed on october 7, 1991. it is further pleaded that since the petitioner did not deposit the development charges as stipulated in annexure p-10, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on that count as well. 2 from government quota, requested the trust to recommend his case to the government for exchange of plot from block 'd' to block 'a'.the trust vide letter dated march 30, 1988 recommended the said transfer to the state government. 315-za to 320-za but also regard to other matters like refund of rs. the allotment as well was changed with a view to give him plot no. yards as the land acquisition collector in a wholly illegal manner paid compensation with regard to the remaining area to those who had sold their land to petitioner society way back in the year 1968, regarding which mutations were also sanctioned in the year 1970. this court would not like to go into the question as to whether the compensation was paid to those who are not at all entitled to it on account of bungling and mixing up of the officials of the respondent-trust and the land acquisition collector or it was on account of bona fide mistake by ignoring the mutations that were sanctioned in favour of petitioner as, by now, it has been proved not only by placing documentary evidence on the records but also on account of admission of respondent-trust evidenced through order of the chairman, reference of which has been given in the earlier part of this judgment, that petitioner was infact owner of land measuring 48608 sq. the chairman while examining the matter with executive officer and senior law officer of the trust clearly opined that petitioner society should not be penalised because compensation has been wrongly paid to the persons from whom it had purchased the land and further, action may now be taken accordingly as per the advice of the sr. after so observing, strong case should have been made in favour of petitioner to the tune that compensation was wrongly paid to others and to exempt the remaining land on the same terms and conditions as were imposed at the time of exempting area measuring 36089 sq. petitioner, in a way, has been asked to comply with the said conditions if it would like to have exemption of its land from being acquired. it is just like saying that petitioner has to sign on some dotted lines and in case it has not to do so, it shall have to forgo its right of even as kind for exemption. it requires to be mentioned that it is not only petitioner, who was granted exemption but other as many as 13 societies were also treated in she like manner. 4 baljinder kumar that one plot had been allotted to the latter, i would not like to go into this controversy at this stage as admittedly the plot has been allotted by petitioner to one lekh raj, who in tune filed civil suit wherein respondent no. i would not like to mention anything lest it might prejudice any of the parties before the civil court on merits and rather deem it appropriate that these matters are decided by the civil court itself. the respondent-trust shall, however, be well within its right to ask for development and exemption charges at the rate that were asked for from petitioner when exemption with regard to land measuring 36089 sq.v.k. bali, j.1. the ludhiana gurunanak cooperative house building society (regd), ludhiana, through present writ filed by it under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash annexures p-9 and p-10. it also seek writ in the nature of mandamus directing the ludhiana improvement trust to allot it plot in regard to remaining land out of land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas as and to direct the respondents to refund an amount of rs. 1,62,895.25 ps. which was got deposited from it illegally and under coercion in pursuance of the resolution no. 61 (annexure p-7) as also not to demand exemption charges and development charges in excess of rs. 2/- and rs. 40.60/- per sq. yards respectively.2. the facts on which the relief aforesaid, rests, reveal that petitioner society owned land measuring 48308 square yards in the revenue estate of village jawandi details of which have been given in para 2 of the petition. this land was purchased by it in 1968 for developing a residential colony of its members. respondent no. 2 - ludhiana improvement trust framed a housing scheme, known as 'model town extension part-ii scheme' in a wide area including the land of village jawadi. the said scheme was framed by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of section 24 read with section 28 of the punjab town improvement act, 1922 (herein- after to be referred as 'the act'). petitioner society alongwith certain other societies submitted representation to respondent no. 2 to exempt its land from acquisition for the execution of the said scheme. the trust acceded to its request made by it through representation and by ressolution no. 24 dated november 28, 1972 exempted its land as also of 13 other house building societies. in accordance with its demands, petitioner society deposited rs. 36,235/- as exemption charges on april 12, 1973. however the scheme framed in the year 1972 was revoked and fresh scheme styled as 'model town part-ii extension scheme was introduced in may, 1973. meanwhile, the provisions of section 56 of the act had since been amended and the power to grant exemption which was earlier with the trust was transferred to the state government. in the wake of change in law, petitioner and 13 other societies again approached the improvement trust to recommend their case to the state government for exempting their land under section 56 of the act. vide resolution dated october 31, 1974 the case of petitioner was recommended to the state government for exemption. in both the resolutions, that is, one passed earlier and the one which was passed later on october 31, 1974 the area of the land of petitioner regarding which exemption was sought, was stated to be 48308 sq. yards. the government vide notification dated june 25, 1981 granted its approval for exemption on certain conditions........... the trust, thus, vide letter dated july 3, 1984 issued exemption letter to it in respect of area measuring 36089 sq. yards in the shape of 98 plots totaling an area under the plots measuring 18036 sq. yards. petitioner society paid the development charges stipulated in the exemption letter and also executed agreement for exemption on august 8, 1984. however, prior to when the exemption was granted, petitioner had also filed civil writ petition for quashing notification acquiring their land. that writ was, however, withdrawn on the assurance given by the state government that the question of grant of exemption would be considered only after writ petition had been withdrawn. after the above exemption was granted, representation was made by petitioner society that it had total area of 48308 sq. yards and exemption had been granted only with regard to land measuring 360.89 sq. yards and, therefore, it was requested that the matter with regard to the remaining land should also be dealt with. however, no reply was received. the reason why the case of petitioner for exempting the remaining land was not being considered, was that compensation with regard to about 12000 sq. yards of land had been paid to those from whom it had purchased the said land and it was only with a view to cover up their own mistake, it is stated, that the respondents were not dealing with its case with regard to exemption of remaining land. it was way back in the year 1968 that the above land was purchased by it and in the year 1970 even mutations had also been sanctioned and yet compensation with regard to the said land was paid to those from whom it had purchased the same. petitioner, therefore, had no choice but for to issue notice under section 98 of the act calling upon the respondents to accept its ownership in respect of land measuring 48308 sq. yards instead of 36089 sq. yards. however, when to reply was received, it filed a civil suit against the respondents in the court of senior subordinate judge, ludhiana for declaration and permanent injunction. during the pendency of that suit, it also made representation to the state government and to the secretary, local self department, chandigarh seeking justice and directions to the offices concerned to exempt its remaining land as well as to allot plots in lieu thereof. the government asked the chairman of the improvement trust, who in turn called report from the executive officer of the trust. a report was submitted by the executive officer, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure p-4 with this petition. when petitioner found that the report was not adverse to it and infact it was found that it was owner to the extent of 48038 sq. yards, it withdrew its suit on august 14, 1985. the chairman of the trust thereafter examined the matter with the executive officer and senior legal officer of the trust. the following order came to be passed by the chairman after consultations:-'i agree that the society should not be penalised because compensation has been wrongly paid to the persons from whom the society had o purchased the land. further action may now be taken accordingly as per the advice of the sr. law officer but 'x' at page 5 may be confirmed.if the documents produced by the society at flag 'a' and 'b' are authentic then this society had become owner in the revenue record well before the date on which compensation was paid. it appears to be likely that considerable bungling has taken place in the office of the lac otherwise it would not have been possible that wrongful compensation could be paid. i would request the present lac to look into this matter in detail and bring out the factual position.'even though such were the report and orders of the chairman, no action was taken in the matter, thus, compelling petitioner to submit detailed representation to the secretary, local government, punjab, wherein it was once again mentioned that exemption should be granted with regard to remaining land measuring 12000 sq. yards as well. it was only on june 15, 1987 that the trust agreed to allot plots to petitioner society against their area measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas and also to take proceedings against those who had been wrongly paid the compensation by land acquisition collector. in pursuance of the resolution aforesaid, it deposited an amount of rs. 1,62,205.25/-. this amount had to be deposited as one of the conditions while exempting the remaining land was that petitioner should deposit the amount of compensation that had been paid to those from whom it had purchased the land. it is pleaded and so argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the society had no choice in the matter even though the said condition was illegal and infact action should have been take against those who had paid the money to the persons, who were not owners of the land and such persons should have also been proceeded with a view to recover the said amount. however, after it deposited the amount aforesaid, it was agreed vide resolution dated july 23, 1990 to allot plots to the petitioner society with regard to the remaining land measuring about 12000 sq. yards, again, on certain conditions. a copy of the order has been annexed as annexure p-9. in pursuance of the resolution aforesaid, petitioner was issued letter dated january 16,1991 by respondent no. 2 wherein it was informed that six plots in 'a' block of the scheme and 15 plots in block 'd' shall be allotted to it on the conditions of paying development charges @ rs. 90/- per sq. yard and exemption fee of rs. 5/- per sq. yard. earlier when land measuring 36089 sq. yards was exempted, petitioner was asked to pay exemption fee of rs. 0.75 ps. per sq. yards. thereafter, exemption charges were increased from 0.75 ps. to rs. 2/- per sq. yard and the development charges were demanded @ rs. 40.60 ps per sq. yard which were duly paid in respect of exemption of land measuring 36089 sq. yards. in wake of the facts that have been detailed above, mr. jagan nath kaushal, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioner society contends that the action of the respondents in issuing letters annexures p-9 and p-10, and in particular annexure p-10, wherein petitioner has been asked to pay development charges @ 90 rs. - per sq. yard and exemption fee @ rs. 5/- per sq. yard, are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. it is mainly argued that the petitioner can not be penalised for the default and fraud committed by others.3. the cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it has been pleaded by way of preliminary objections that petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts. earlier it filed civil suit for grant of permanent injunction against answering respondents with a prayer not to allot or deliver possession of plot nos. 309-az to 329 az measuring 100 sq. yards each to any other person in the model town extension scheme part-ii, ludhiana. during the pendency of the said suit, respondent no. 2 addressed letter dated january 16, 1991 (annexure p-10) to petitioner society offering it to allot plots no. 315 za to 320za and 15 plots of 100 sq. yards in 'd' block with four stipulated conditions mentioned in annexure p-10. petitioner did not fulfill the condition with regard to withdrawing the civil suit within fifteen days as stipulated in the letter, annexure p-10, and infact withdrew the suit after more than seven months of the issuance of letter, annexure p-10 and as such it was not entitled to any relief. further the punjab government vide letter addressed to it, allotted plot no. 320za in the model town extension part-ii, ludhiana in favour of baljinder kumar and the same was kept reserved for him vide letter dated may 2,1991, annexure r-2. it was done as petitioner did not withdraw pending court case within 15 days of issuance of letter, annexure p-10, dated january 16, 1991. baljinder kumar filed an application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure for impleading him as defendant in the civil suit which was allowed on october 7, 1991. it is further pleaded that since the petitioner did not deposit the development charges as stipulated in annexure p-10, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on that count as well. with regard to an additional area of 19 kanals 14 marlas petitioner never demanded any exemption at earlier stages and it was recorded as owner of 59 kanals 13 marlas i.e. 36089 sq. yards of land which was acquired by the trust and for which exemption was accorded by the government of punjab. petitioner did not raise any dispute regarding the additional area which was recorded in the names of inderjit singh, teja singh, udhe singh and atma singh and the aforesaid landowners had received compensation from the court of land acquisition collector. it was for the petitioner to raise the dispute regarding claim of ownership as also disbursement of compensation during acquisition proceedings before the land acquisition collector or for referring the dispute to the court. in this situation, it is pleaded, the petitioner can not ask for any relief at this stage. possession of 21 plots has also not been taken by petitioner as it did not fulfill any of the conditions mentioned in annexure p-10 and for that reason also dismissal of writ has been asked for. on merits, it has been pleaded that petitioner is recorded to be owner of 36089 sq. yards of land with others. inderjeet singh son of basant singh was recorded owner of khasra nos. 325, 403,324,337 to 342 and 551 measuring 3000 sq. yards and teja singh, udhe singh sons of mota singh and atma singh son of sampuran singh were recorded to be owners of khasra nos. 325, 324,337 to 342 and 351 measuring 9000 sq. the total land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas was recorded in favour of the aforesaid landowners and they obtained compensation of the land so acquired from the office of land acquisition collector and petitioner did not raise any objection regarding disbursement of the same to the aforesaid persons in the acquisition proceedings. it is on that count, it is further pleaded that petitioner is not entitled to claim exemption in respect of 12000 sq. yards of land. no further meaningful defence has been projected in the written statement nor any arguments on the basis of pleadings other than mentioned above, have been raised. it would, thus, be an exercise in futility to mention other grounds taken in the written statement.4. baljinder kumar, who was arrayed as party-respondent on the application so made by him under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, has also filed separate written statement. the reference of his pleadings would be necessary only to the extent which may not be repetition, that is, the grounds taken by the respondent-improvement trust, reference of which has already been made, require no mention. he pleads that letter annexure p-10, has already been cancelled as would be clear from letter dated may 13, 1991. one lekh raj, who is stated to be member of petitioner society, had also filed civil suit in the court of senior sub judge, ludhiana for permanent injunction restraining the trust from allotting plot no. 320-za and has obtained an order of status-quo on june 20, 1991. it is pleaded that petitioner, who is also party in the aforesaid civil suit, ought to have disclosed the filing of said suit mentioned above, besides suppressing material facts, petitioner society could not legally avail two alternative remedies as the suit filed by its member shall be construed to be a suit filed by itself. the plea of writ being barred by order 2 rule 2 of the code of civil procedure has also been raised as the earlier civil suit was voluntarily withdrawn without seeking permission to file fresh on the same cause of action. it is also pleaded that the writ involves disputed questions of fact which can not be adjudicated by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. the plots nos. 320-za to 329 za have since already been allotted to him and other persons with the approval of the government and the respondent-trust was not competent to cancel the allotment of these plots at its own and offer the same to petitioner vide letter, annexure p-10. respondent no. 2 had no authority, whatsoever, to make offer of plot no. 320za alongwith other plots to petitioner inasmuch as no legal right accrued to it to claim any title to the said plot as the same had already been allotted to him with the approval of the state government. the punjab government vide letter dated march 28, 1988 approved lay-out plan for 21 plots measuring 100 sq. yards each near water works in 'a' block of model town extension part-ii scheme, subject, however, to the condition that allotment of those plots would be made with the approval of the government. he i.e. answering respondent, who had been allotted plot no. 1115-d in model own extension part-ii scheme by respondent no. 2 from government quota, requested the trust to recommend his case to the government for exchange of plot from block 'd' to block 'a'. the trust vide letter dated march 30, 1988 recommended the said transfer to the state government. the government accepted the recommendation and approved the change of allotment from plot no. 1115-d to block 'a' vide order dated january 16,1989. in pursuance of the approval accorded by the punjab government, the trust allotted plot no. 320-za to him in lieu of plot no. 1115 d. he paid the costs of plot no. 320-za to the trust. plot nos. 321-za to 329-za were also allotted to various persons in january, 1989 alongwith him on the directions of the government. the allotment in respect of those plots was cancelled by the chairman of the trust in august, 1989 as was done in his case. the former . chairman of the trust restored those plots to its original allotees on july 27, 1990 and january 17, 1991 but did not restore the plot to him and, thus, made discrimination amongst persons equally situate. inasmuch as plot no. 320-za was allotted to him after getting approval of the state government, the trust had no authority to cancel the same at its own. it was cancelled arbitrarily and even without affording an opportunity of hearing. being aggrieved, he represented to the government for restoration of the plot but the trust without waiting for the decision of the government, further made offer to petitioner vide letter, annexure p-10, subject, however, to certain conditions. meanwhile, the government accepted his representation and directed the trust vide order dated may 2, 1991 to ensure that plot no. 320-za was not allotted to any other person and to keep it reserved for him. it is in the wake of circumstances aforesaid that the trust cancelled the letter, annexure p-10, with intimation to him. the government further ordered restoration of plot to him on june 6,1991.5. petitioner has chosen to file replications to the written statements filed by respondent nos. 2 and 4. with regard to the civil suit, it is pleaded that the same was instituted for delivery of possession of plot nos. 309-za to 329-za measuring 100 sq. yards each. as possession of some of the plots had been delivered to it, the civil suit was withdrawn before the filing of present petition. the claim in this writ was not only with regard to plot nos. 315-za to 320-za but also regard to other matters like refund of rs. 1,62,805.25/- and for payment of development charges @ rs. 40/- per sq. yard and not @ rs. 95/- per sq. yard. after letter, annexure p-10, cause accrued to it to claim the relief aforesaid as it was through his letter alone that various conditions were imposed. in so far as allotment of plot no. 320-za to baljinder kumar is concerned, it is pleaded that the government had issued letter vide which plot no. 320-za was to be kept reserved for baljinder kumar. this letter was issued in may, 1991 long after the issue of letter dated january 16,1991 under which plot no. 320-za had already been transferred to it. the government had, thus, no jurisdiction to direct that a particular plot in a particular scheme be kept reserved for a particular person who was not even resident of district ludhiana and he was not entitled to the allotment of plot under the rules called 'utilisation of land and allotment of plots by improvement trust, rules, 1975.' baljinder kumar, it is pleaded, yields influence with the state government to whom earlier a plot was allotted in 256 acres development scheme styled as 'maharshi balmiki nagar' of the improvement trust. this allotment, however, was cancelled to oblige him as he was allotted plot no. 1115-d in the model town extension part-ii scheme. the allotment as well was changed with a view to give him plot no. 320-za, if possible but unfortunately this plot had already been allotted to it before letter was issued in favour of baljinder kumar. the area of 19 kanals 14 marlas belonging to petitioner society, measuring about 12000 sq. yards in regard to which compensation had been wrongly paid to inderjit singh and teja singh etc., was sold to it in 1968 under registered sale deeds dated october 15, 968 and november 1, 1968. after the execution of the sale-deeds, no interest was left in the land with said inderjit singh and teja singh etc. and they could not have been paid any compensation in respect of the land sold by them. after the execution of the sale-deeds, mutation no. 1666 was also sanctioned in its favour. likewise, mutation no. 167 in regard to land sold by teja singh etc. was also sanctioned in its favour. these facts were brought to the notice of the then chairman of the trust by the law officer. copies of the notices sent in this regard have been placed on records as annexures p-4 and p-5. it is in this context, it is pleaded, that the trust should not have disputed its ownership with regard to this piece of land. it is pleaded that on the one hand the respondents and in particular the land acquisition collector got paid rs. 1,164,000/- illegally to inderjit singh etc. and on the other hand petitioner society had been punished for the wrongful and illegal acts of the respondents in making payment in respect of the land of petitioner to inderjit singh etc. who had already sold the same to it under registered sale deeds and mutation regarding which had already been sanctioned. further, the respondents themselves admitted in 1972,1974 and 1975 that the area of land belonging to it was 48038 sq. yards.6. while dealing with the written statement filed by respondent no. 4 it has been pleaded that he is resident of sirhind, district patiala and is not displaced person as defined in the utilisation of land and allotment of plots by improvement trust rules, 1975 nor does his case fall under any other clause of the said rules. no plot, thus, could be allotted to him in model town extension part-ii scheme. further, no order of the state government allotting residential plot to him has been placed either by the trust or by him. the records of the trust would manifest that residential plot was allotted to him in the 256 acres development scheme which was got changed from the said scheme to model town extension. again allotment was changed from the above said scheme and he was given plot no. 320-za. there was no provision, whatsoever, in the rules aforesaid for the change of plot from one scheme to another and from one block to another at the sweet will of the allottee. it is sated that relation of this respondent was working in the punjab civil secretariat, chandigarh and he had been instrumental in getting the said changes made. insofar as plot no. 320-za is concerned, it is pleaded, that same could not be allotted to him as reference in this behalf was received from the state government in may, 1991 whereas this plot had already been allotted to petitioner society in january, 1991. the averment of respondent no. 4 that letter, annexure p-10, has already been cancelled, has been denied. insofar as plot no. 320-za is concerned, it is pleaded that petitioner itself allotted this plot to lekh raj, who had filed suit for permanent injunction against the trust restraining-it from cancelling the allotment. the suit is still pending in the court of sub judge, ludhiana. respondent no. 4 has been impleaded as party in the suit aforesaid. lekh raj filed civil revision against order dated october 7,1991 passed by the sub judge in this court and further proceedings in the suit have been stayed. insofar as suit filed by petitioner is concerned, it is pleaded that the same was for getting plots and restraining the trust or its chairman from alloting the plots to any other persons and once the plots had already been allotted to it, the suit was withdrawn. the applicability of order 2 rule 2 of the code is denied as the cause of action is totally different than the one which was in the civil suit. with regard to its ownership to the extent of 48308 sq. yards, it is pleaded that baljinder kumar is no one to dispute its ownership. it is further pleaded that no disputed questions of fact are involved in the present writ.7. after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, i am of the considered view that the cause of petitioner is meritorious and, therefore, this writ must succeed. petitioner society owned land measuring 48308 sq. yards in the revenue estate of village jawadi. the land was purchased by it in 1968 for developing a residential colony for its members. it applied for exemption when the same was acquired by the improvement trust under section 24 read with section 28. of the punjab town improvement act, 1922. the trust acceded to its requests vide resolution no. 24 dated november 28, 1972. in accordance with its demands, petitioner society deposited rs. 36,235/- as exemption charges on april 12, 1973 when the scheme framed in the year 1972 was revoked, fresh scheme styled as model town part-ii extension scheme came into existence in may, 1973. even the government granted exemption, which, in view of the amended provisions of section 56 had to be done by the government only. in both orders of exemption, i.e. the one granted by the trust and the other by the government, the area from which exemption was sought, was stated to be 48308 sq. yards. however, the trust vide its letter dated july 3, 1984 issued exemption letter in respect of area measuring 36089 sq. yards only in the shape of 98 plots totaling an area under the. plots measuring 18036 sq. yards. the facts that have been noticed above further unmistakably prove that the trust or the government did not grant exemption to petitioner with regard to its entire area measuring 48308 sq. yards and confined it only to 36089 sq. yards as the land acquisition collector in a wholly illegal manner paid compensation with regard to the remaining area to those who had sold their land to petitioner society way back in the year 1968, regarding which mutations were also sanctioned in the year 1970. this court would not like to go into the question as to whether the compensation was paid to those who are not at all entitled to it on account of bungling and mixing up of the officials of the respondent-trust and the land acquisition collector or it was on account of bona fide mistake by ignoring the mutations that were sanctioned in favour of petitioner as, by now, it has been proved not only by placing documentary evidence on the records but also on account of admission of respondent-trust evidenced through order of the chairman, reference of which has been given in the earlier part of this judgment, that petitioner was infact owner of land measuring 48608 sq. yards. once this fact is established as also that if this glaring mistake, as has been noticed above, had not been made by the land acquisition collector and the trust, then it has necessarily to be held that petitioner would have been given exemption with regard to the entire land. the mistake for not exempting the entire land, thus, being exclusively attributable to the respondents, the only question that survives is as to whether the petitioner should be made to suffer for it or that only equitable approach in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be to compensate the petitioner, atleast, by permitting it to pay development and other incidental charges that would have been payable by its, had the order of exemption with regard to entire area been passed on the date when it was passed with regard to the other part of land. in my considered view answer to this question has to be recorded in favour of petitioner. it is trite law that the fault of court can not visit a litigant with evil consequences. this principle applies equally when the fault is made by the government or its officers. in a welfare state a citizen can not be made to suffer on account of fault of the government or its officers. the chairman while examining the matter with executive officer and senior law officer of the trust clearly opined that petitioner society should not be penalised because compensation has been wrongly paid to the persons from whom it had purchased the land and further, action may now be taken accordingly as per the advice of the sr. law officer. he further opined that it was likely that considerable bungling had taken place in the office of the land acquisition collector otherwise it would not have been possible that wrongful compensation could be paid. after so observing, strong case should have been made in favour of petitioner to the tune that compensation was wrongly paid to others and to exempt the remaining land on the same terms and conditions as were imposed at the time of exempting area measuring 36089 sq. yards. on the contrary, while exempting the remaining land, it was ordered that petitioner would pay development charges @ rs. 90/- per sq. yard and exemption charges @ rs. 5/- per sq. yard. not only that, petitioner was asked to make payment of rs. 1,62,805/- which was paid by the land acquisition collector to the vendors of petitioner. it paid the aforesaid amount and even though in the writ, prayer has been made for refund of the same, mr. jagan nath kaushal, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioner, however, states that even though petitioner is entitled to the same, it shall not insist for its refund and would rather choose to ask, for setting aside or quashing of arbitrary conditions imposed in the letter, annexure p-10, in particular, with regard to development charges. letter, annexure p-10, was received by it under protest subject to full satisfaction of its claim as mentioned in the letter aforesaid. that apart, the unilateral conditions, as spelled out in annexure p-10, are wholly arbitrary. petitioner, in a way, has been asked to comply with the said conditions if it would like to have exemption of its land from being acquired. it is just like saying that petitioner has to sign on some dotted lines and in case it has not to do so, it shall have to forgo its right of even as kind for exemption. it requires to be mentioned that it is not only petitioner, who was granted exemption but other as many as 13 societies were also treated in she like manner. even writ was filed by petitioner and it was only when an assurance was given that its land would be exempted, it had withdrawn its cause. it is, thus, established that petitioner was asking for his right either flowing from statute or from the principle of equality enshrined under article 14 of the constitution of india. order, annexure p-10, exempting the remaining land of petitioner was, thus, in recognition of its right and while doing so the respondent-trust could impose only reasonable conditions. the condition of paying development charges at the rate of rs. 90/- per square yard and exemption fee @ rs. 5/- per square yard is obviously more than twice that was charged at the time when earlier exemption was granted with regard to the major chunk of land. delay in exempting the remaining land is wholly attributable to the respondents and, therefore, conditions aforesaid i.e. asking for development charges @ rs. 90/- per square yard and exemption fee @ rs. 5/- per square yard would be arbitrary, thus, violating article 14 of the constitution of india.8. in so far as preliminary objections which are technical in nature are concerned, the same have merely to be stated to be rejected. it appears that finding no substantial point to defend the otherwise undefendable cause of petitioner, these points have been pressed into service and dismissal of writ has been asked for. in so far as civil suit is concerned, the same rested on entirely on different cause of action. by the time, civil suit was filed, admittedly, petitioner was not recognized to be owner of 12000 square yards of land, exemption with regard to such land and obviously not been granted and the prayer of petitioner was entirely directed in that line. further, after issuance of letter, annexure p-10, the surviving cause of action is only the conditions imposed therein which had obviously nothing to do with the civil suit the may conditions imposed in the letter, annexure p-10, have been challeng in the present petition and that being so, it cannot be said that non-fulfilment of the same would disentitle it to any relief. as mentioned above, letter annexure p-10, was accepted under protest. that being so, non-withdrawal of civil suit within 15 days as also non payment of development charges and exemption fee at the rates mentioned in annexure p-10 within stipulated time is of no meaning and consequence.9. in so far is the plea of respondent-trust and respondent no. 4 baljinder kumar that one plot had been allotted to the latter, i would not like to go into this controversy at this stage as admittedly the plot has been allotted by petitioner to one lekh raj, who in tune filed civil suit wherein respondent no. 4 is also party defendant. the right of respondent no. 4 to get allotment under the rules being displaced person or otherwise, the cancellation of annexure p-10 in so far as it affects him as also the right of government to allot it to respondent no. 4 after issuing letter, annexure p-10, are all matters which are to be gone into by the civil court. the above questions and, in particular, the right of respondent no. 4 to get allotment of plot, cannot be decided without recording evidence. i would not like to mention anything lest it might prejudice any of the parties before the civil court on merits and rather deem it appropriate that these matters are decided by the civil court itself.10. for the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed to the extent that conditions imposed by the respondent-trust in letter, annexure p-10, asking for development charges @ rs. 90/- per sq. yard and exemption fee @ rs. 5/- per sq. yard, are illegal and, thus, quashed. the respondent-trust shall, however, be well within its right to ask for development and exemption charges at the rate that were asked for from petitioner when exemption with regard to land measuring 36089 sq. yards was granted to it. the entitlement of plot no. 320-za, that is, if it is to remain with the petitioner society and through it with lekh raj or it should be allotted in favour of respondent no. 4 would, however, be decided by the civil court. this writ is allowed with costs quantified at rs. 1000/-