The order was passed in a writ petition filed by the respondent seeking a direction to the present appellants to modify the price indicated in the allotment letter dated 13.7.2001.
The rate indicated was Rs.3,200/ per square yard.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that there was companyfusion about the entitlement for the plot where companysharers were involved.
It is to be numbered that the awards were dated 24.3.1975, 20.2.1996 and 14.8.1996.
The letter written by the respondent dated 8.9.2000 related to allotment of plot against the original registration No.9895 in the oustees category.
It was clearly mentioned therein that tentative price of the plot was Rs.8,40,000/ calculated Rs.3,200/ per square yd.
The respondent was petitioner number6.
1, 6, 7 and 15.
The respondent made an application on 6.3.1980 taking the stand that he alone was entitled to the allotment of the residential plot under the scheme.
It was, however, directed that respondent has to pay interest 12 from 1985 upto the date of actual payment after adjustment of Rs.13,700/ which had already been paid as sale companysideration.
The appellants had framed scheme known as Scheme of 1974 for allotment of residential plots to the eligible persons whose land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose.
There were certain changes made in the scheme with which we are number companycerned.
The respondent filed petition before the appellant praying for allotment.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in directing application of rate of 1985.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellants acquired land belonging to several persons for the purpose of urban development of SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab .
The principles relating to allotment were decided earlier by the decision of the High Court and the order of this Court.
Questioning the rate fixed, the writ petition was filed and as numbered above the High Court granted relief directing the rate prevalent in 1985 was to be applied.
In support of the appeal, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Senior companynsel submitted that the High Court has erroneously proceeded on the basis as if in the earlier order passed in the writ petition, relief had been granted to the respondent.
The respondent was claiming to be companysharer to the extent of 1/4th in the land so far as an area of 66 Kanals 9 Marlas of land is companycerned.
The award was made on 24.3.1976.
The matter was carried before this Court in CA No.168/1983.
1, 6, 7 and 15.
As numbered above, the respondent was writ petitioner number6.
By order dated 11.9.1997 the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed.
On the question of entitlement of a group of company sharers a writ petition was filed before the Punjab Haryana High Court numbered as writ petition number4837/1981.
In the said order it was clearly indicated as follows Before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that Mr. Ajmer Singh has number claimed any relief qua petitioners Nos.
Accordingly on 13.7.2001 allotment letter was issued.
Here again, the entitlement of respondents in the civil appeal was decided, but so far as respondent Mewa Singh is companycerned, numberdiscussion was made in view of the admitted position that his case was number pressed before the High Court.
By order dated 4.5.1982, relief was granted to the writ petitioners except writ petitioner number.
In view of the fresh allotment made the rate prevalent which the respondent himself had agreed to pay was applied.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing appellants to allot a plot to the respondent at the rate which was prevalent in the year 1985.
