Civil appeal No.
That would be ten per cent of the premium payable for the site.
The High Court however, felt that the appellants would be liable to pay only at the rate of .
The High Court was of the view that there was numberhing illegal in the revised policy adopted by the Chandigarh administration since the appellants did number acquire right to get bigger sites in the industrial area phase II.
15 per square yard and number Rs.35 per square yard.
They applied with deposit of earnest money of Rs.1000 each.
The appellants however, did number participate in the proceedings.
They did number ask for sites in the Industrial area phase I. Their applications for sites in the industrial area phase II were number rejected.
They moved the High Court with a petition under Art.
97 98 of 1981.
All the applications were processed for final allotment.
From the Judgment and order dated 25.4.1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. No.
The appellants appear to have companyplied with that demand also.
There about 131 of sites were reserved for allotment to printing press owners.
It was companytended inter alia that they had a right to take possession of bigger plots in respect of which the lots were earlier drawn in their favour.
Civil Appeal No.
But the authorities did number issue letters of allotment.
The authorities wanted to accommodate as many applicants as possible.
That is all at the preliminary hearing of the writ petition.
The reason was obvious.
The same applications appear to have been companysidered for sites in the industrial area phase I. Secondly, the applicants were number responsible for the delay in the allotment of sites.
But they companyld number accommodate all those applicants for want of adequate number of sites in the industrial area phase II.
Why then there should be a higher rate payable by these persons.
226 of the Constitution challenging the revised policy for allotment of smaller sites.
In October 1977, the lots were drawn and the lady luck smiled at the appellants.
97 of 1981 were some of them.
15 per square yard.
The authorities were also of the view that for setting up the printing industry, larger sites such as those earmarked earlier, would number be necessary and smaller sites would meet the requirements.
In the final hearing the High Court did number give substantial relief to the appellants.
Since there were more applicants than the sites available, the authorities decided to draw the lots.
The High Court issued rule Nisi in the petition, but allowed the authorities to draw the lots as proposed.
It is against this judgment that the present appeals have been preferred.
The appellants and other like applicant were intimated by letters that the said sites would be allotted at the rate of RS.35 per square yard.
They were also informed that the allotment would be made by draw of lots on October 3, 1979.
97/81 is by the printing press owners.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
98/81 is by the Chandigarh administration.
In fact, the other entrepreneurs who were allotted sites from industrial area phase II paid the premium only at the rate of Rs.
Accordingly a direction was issued to the authorities.
In the meantime, it is said that the appellants were called upon to deposit 25 per cent of the premium calculated at the rate of Rs.
15 per square yard.
The appellants in Appeal No.
15 per square yard.
The authorities had a second look at the scheme of allotment of sites for printing industries.
For that purpose, they earmarked forty three sites in the industrial area phase II.
M. Tarkunde and N.S. Das Behl for the Appellants.
If the applicants had been allotted sites as per the original proposal and as per the first draw in 1977, they would have been liable to pay only at the rate of Rs.
Consequently, the sites proposed in the industrial area phase II were given up and a lay out of smaller sites in the industrial area phase I was formed.
The Chandigarh administration is aggrieved by the direction issued by the High Court as to the premium to be recovered from the allottees.
The High Court also permitted the appellants to deposit the premium demanded without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment dated April 25, 1980 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in civil writ number 3512 of 1979.
Kapil Sibal, P. Gaur and Jitendra Sharma for the Respondents.
The revised policy of allotment of industrial sites for the establishment of printing presses in Chandigarh has been called into question in the aforesaid writ petition.
2512 of 1979.
