1. UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.--- The petitioner was given provisional allotment of Plot No.68-A-11 in the respondent No.2 Society vide letter dated 10-10-1991. Unknown to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 was also given a provisional allotment of the same plot vide letter dated 30-7-1995. The petitioner was served a demand for additional development charges of Rs.48,750 which she challenged and won in an arbitration award dated 29-3-2002. Subsequently, in appeal filed by the respondent- Society a compromise was recorded on 31-7-2003 whereby the petitioner accepted the demand for additional development charges and deposited the same in the amount of Rs.48,750 vide revalidated pay order on 3-11-2003. Prior to the said demand, the petitioner was current with her financial obligation in the amount of Rs.2,10,000 duly paid as on 29-5-1996.
2. 2.The respondent No.1 did not challenge the said demand for additional development charges of Rs.48,750 but deposited the same later on 18-3-2002. In addition to cost of land of Rs.1,60,000 collected from both provisional allottees, the Society collected development charges of Rs.3,38,500 from the petitioner and Rs.1,68,750 from the respondent No.1 for the same plot. The respondent No.1 has not deposited the later demand for additional development charges because it was allegedly raised after handing over possession of the plot to the respondent No.1 on 6-4-2003.
3. 3.The respondent No.2 Society has acknowledged the issue of doubleallotmentofseveralplotsintheminutesofitsAGMheld on 9-4-2005 which are attached to its reply. The said minutes disclose that 65 allotments, including in relation to the subject-matter PlotNo.68-A-II, were disputed for being duplicate/double allotments for the same plot. Therefore to establish priority of allotment amongst claimants a formula was approved in the AGM on 9-4-2005 which allocates 40% marks to a claimant having prior membership, 35% marks for a prior date of allotment and 25% marks for a prior date of payment of dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the said formula has been struck down by this Court in Writ Petition No.6469 of 2005 titled Dr. Seema Malik v. Government of Punjab vide order dated 27-5-2006 and the Society's appeal is pending before a learned Division Bench of this Court in ICA No.212 of 2006. That judgment has been perused. It contains no discussion on the merits or validity of the said formula.
4. It is not as such relevant to the present controversy.
5. 4.In the present case, the date of provisional allotment in favour of the petitioner is in 1991 whereas the respondent No.1 got provisional allotment of the said plot in the year 1995. With regard to Priority in payment the respondent No.1 has paid Rs.3,34,250 for the plot, the petitioner has paid the full amount of dues of Rs.4,34,500 for the plot on 3-11-2003. The petitioner has in fact paid subsequent demand for additional development charges which has been refused by the respondent No.1.
6. 5.The DOC vide order dated 28-2-2011 and the SCS vide order dated 13-8-2012 have decided against the petitioner on the ground that she did not have seniority over the respondent No.1 according to the formula adopted by the AGM in its meeting dated 9-4-2005.
7. 6.Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. One deplorable feature of this case is the alleged double allotment of Plot No.68-A-II by the Society to two of its members. It is explained by the Society that the respondent No.1 was originally allotted Plot No.35-A-1 but that came under litigation. The present Plot No.68-A-II was allotted to him in 1995 butitwascancelledfordefaultinpaymentofdues.AthirdPlot No.90-B-II was allotted to him but it is under litigation. On the other hand, the petitioner is the prior allottee of the plot and has paid all dues. The second objectionable feature of this case is the sudden decision by the Society, to issue final allotment letter of the subject plot in favour of respondent No.1 on 6-4-2003 and to accept immediate payment of the defaulted amount on that date from the respondent No.1. On that date the petitioner was current with her obligation having already won her case vide award dated 29-3- 2002 against demand for development charges of Rs.48,750. As such there was no existing default by the petitioner before 6-4-2003 to justify the sudden allotment of the plot to the respondent No.1.
8. The respondent-Society decided to collect money from the respondent No.1 in order to justify denial of right won by the petitioner under the arbitration award dated 29-3-2002.
9. 7.Therefore, the controversy has arisen because of the arbitrary and non-transparent actions of the respondent-Society. Considering the case on its plain facts the provisional allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner is prior in time. She made full payment of her dues to the Society which was upheld in aforesaid arbitration award. It is only after the respondent No.1 was given an allotment letter on 6-4-2003 that the petitioner rushed to save her plot by a compromise and surrender of gains on 31-7-2003. According to the reply by the respondent-Society filed before the RCS, respondent No.1 was a defaulter and in any event had opted for Plot No.90-B-II. The impugned orders have deprived the petitioner of her lawful right to the allotment of the plot. The Society acted complicity to accommodate the respondent No.1 by issuing him the final allotment letter of Plot No.68-A-II on 6-4-2003 whilst Society's appeal was still pending against the petitioner regarding the same plot. Considering the matter fairly and candidly, it is held that the petitioner deserves relief in this case because the respondent No.1 was given an undue favour by the Society on 6-4- 2003 in derogation of rights and without hearing the petitioner. This petition is allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.