TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... flat was allocated to the respondent No.1 and she was informed vide letter dated 19.11.1997 about the said allocation. As per the said allocation letter, the allotment was for a tentative cost to the tune of Rs. 4,79,200/-. Respondent No.1 would deposit a further 15% of the price of the flat within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and the balance amount was to be deposited in equal monthly installments over a period of 13 years. It was also open for her to make payment of the balance amount in a lump sum within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The authority issued the letter of allotment dated 9th March, 1999 in her favour, which made it clear that the price of the house was Rs. 5,55,200/- and that she had to send her acceptance of the allotment and deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. She had to deposit the balance amount in monthly installment over a period of 13 years. The respondent No.1 did not make any response to the said letter nor did she deposit any amount. The appellant- authority on her query vide letter dated 28th August, 2003, informed the respondent No.1 that the allotment made in her ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he incorrect address. Therefore, the order of the High Court does not warrant interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Appellate Authority, after considering the pleadings, appreciating the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 did not deposit the required amount and did not execute the hire- purchase agreement and she failed to give any cogent reason for the same. The appeal was rejected. 10. Before the Revisional Authority, no factual foundation had been laid by respondent No. 1 on relevant factual aspects, particularly, on the fact that she had not received the allotment letter. The only relevant ground reads as under: "That due to some financial difficulties, the applicant-petitioner could not arrange the huge sum of Rs. 1,19,800/- to be paid within the stipulated period. The applicant-petitioner also approached some banks for loan but the Bank Authorities did not agree to grant loan for the purpose. However, now the applicant- petitioner has arranged funds for the purpose and is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letters and on which the stamp of the Post Officer, SAS Nagar, dated 11.3.1999 had been affixed along with 11 other registered letters dispatched on that date. Photocopies of those allotment letters were appended along with affidavit. It was further submitted that the letter of cancellation was also sent to the same address where the allocation and allotment letters had been sent. 16. The matter came up before the Court on 22.11.2007 when the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 stood allowed without examining the entire record placed before the Court, only on the ground that the dispatch register did not contain the correct name and address of respondent No.1. The writ petition was finally allowed by the High Court within a period of 26 days of its filing without giving any proper opportunity to the present appellants to file a reply and produce material to controvert the averments made in the writ petition. 17. The High Court failed to note that the appellants had taken a specific plea that the letter of allotment had been communicated to respondent No. 1 by Registered Post. The Privy Council in Harihar Banerjee Vs. Ramshashi Roy AIR 1918 PC 102, held that there can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e examined the issue in the correct perspective, as respondent No. 1 did not controvert the plea taken by the appellants of sending the allotment letter by Registered Post. 22. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It s only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment. (See Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1995 SC 1). 23. Constitution Benches of this Court in Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 395; and State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika AIR 1966 SC 1313, have held that an order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned. Before the communication, the order can not be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. A similar view has been reiterated in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2722; and State of West B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reconditioners (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 733. In the instant case, as the new plea on fact has been raised first time before the High Court it could not have been entertained, particularly in the manner the High Court has dealt with as no opportunity of controverting the same had been given to the appellants. More so, The High Court, instead of examining the case in the correct perspective, proceeded in haste, which itself amounts to arbitrariness. (Vide Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2010 SC 1237). 26. In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 130, this Court held that cancellation of an allotment should be a last resort. The allotment should not be cancelled unless the intention or motive on the part of the allottee in not making due payment is evident. The drastic power of resumption and forfeiture should be exercised in exceptional cases but that does not mean that the statutory rights conferring the right on the authority should never be resorted to. In exceptional circumstances, where the allottee does not make any payment in terms of allotment, the order of cancellation should be passed. Sympathy or sentiment by itself....