PARADISE PRINTERS AND ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 157 · Decided: 04-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

).. 
PARADISE PRINTERS AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 1987 
[B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
Reversion of policy of allotment of industrial sites for establish-
ment of printing presses, under the Chandigarh (Development and 
Regulation) Act. 1952, and the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and 
Building Rules, 1973, challenged. 
A 
B 
c 
The Chandigarh Administration wanted the printing presses, 
scattered all over Chandigarh in the residential premises or small 
shops, to be located in an industrial area. For that purpose, the 
administration earmarked forty three sites in the industrial area 
Phase-II, and invited applications for allotment of the sites. Several 
D 
persons submitted the applications with deposits of earnest money of 
Rs.1,000 in each. That was ten per cent of the premium payable for 
each site. The appellants in the C.A. No. 97 of 1981, who were among 
the said applicants, were called upon to deposit 25 per cent of the 
premium calculated at the rate of Rs.15 per square yard. The appel-
lants complied with that demand. The authorities decided to draw lots 
as the applicants were more than the number of the sites available. In 
October 1977, lots were drawn and the appellants won. But the 
authorities did not issue the letters of allotments. The authorities had a 
second thought about the scheme of the allotment of the sites. They 
wanted to accommodate as many applicants as possible, which, 
however, could not be done in the industrial area phase II. The 
authorities also came to hold the view that for setting up the printing 
Industry, larger sites as earmarked earlier would not be necessary and 
smaller sites would meet the requirements. Consequently, the sites 
proposed in the industrial phase II were given up and a lay-out of 
smaller sites in the industrial area phase I was prepared, wherein 
about BI sites were reserved for allotment to the printing press 
owners. 
The appellants as also the other applicants were intimated by 
letters that the said sites would be allotted at the rate of Rs.35 per 
square yard, and that the allotment would be made by draw of lots on 
October 3, 1979. The appellants did not participate in the proceed-
ings. They moved the High Court by a writ petition, challenging the 
157 
E 
F 
G 
H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
revised policy of the allotment of the smaller sites on the ground inter 
alia that they had a right to take possession of bigger plots in respect 
which lots were earlier drawn in their favour. The High Court did 
not give substantial relief to the appellants, holding that there was 
nothing illegal in the said revised policy since the appellants did not 
acquire right to get bigger sites in the phase II, it directed that the 
ij appellants would be liable to pay at the rate of Rs.15 and not Rs.35 
per square yard. The appellants appealed to this Court by special 
leave against the decision of the High Court (C.A 97 of 1981). The res-
pondents the Chandigarh Administration-also moved this Court by 
special leave (C.A. No. 98 of 1981) against the direction of the High 
Court as to the reduced premium to be recovered from the appellants. 
c 
Dismissing both the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: There was no substance in the appeal by the ·respon-
dents. If the applicants had been allotted sites as per the original plan 
and as per the first draw in 1977, they would have been liable to pay 
D at the rate of Rs.15 per square yard. In fact, the other enterpreneurs 
who were allotted sites in the industrial area phase II paid premium 
only at the rate of Rs.15 per square yard. Why then should there be a 
higher rate payable by the appellants? They had not asked for the sites 
in the industrial area phase I. Secondly, the applicants were not 
responsible for the delay in the allotment of sites. Thirdly, there was no 
E evidence that the Chandigarh Administration had to incur more 
expenditure in forming the new sites in the phase I. The High Court 
was right in directing the authorities to recover only at the rate of 
Rs.15persquareyard. ll61H; l62A-C] 
In the case of the appeal by the appellants/owners of the printing 
F 
presses, admittedly, at the relevant stage, there was no intimation 
of the allotment of the sites to the appellants. There was no 
official communication to them, as required under sub-rule (3) of 
Rule 8 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold Sites and Building Rules, 1973. 
Such an intimation

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.