Sonia Marya v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20919 of 2018.
Date of Decision: 19.08.2019 Sonia Marya .......Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the respondents.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.
By way of the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-10) vide which the candidature of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship was rejected and an amount of Rs.40,000/- was forfeited.
It is contended that on 27.12.2016, the respondentCorporation had issued an advertisement (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for allotment of LPG Distributorship (GRAMIN), Open location Behlolur, Block Machiwara, District Ludhiana. The petitioner submitted an application (Annexure P-3) for allotment of LPG distributorship. As per the requirement, the petitioner had also submitted registered lease deed dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure P-4)
executed between the petitioner and one Khem Singh. The lease deed was in respect of area measuring 24 meters x 34 meters, comprised in Khewat No.61, Khewat No.73, Killa No.56//19/2 (2K-0M) in village Behlolpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. The terms and conditions required the dimension for the land to be used for Godown and Showroom as 21 meters x 26 meters (minimum). On scrutiny of the application and the documents attached, the petitioner was found eligible for allotment of LPG distributorship. The officials of the respondents carried out a field verification on 02.02.2018. Authorised representative Sh. Gurdip Singh Marya was present at the time of field verification, who pointed out to the officials that in fact Khasra number actually leased out in favour of the petitioner is No.10/2 but by mistake, the Khasra No.
19/2 had been typed in the lease deed. Thereafter, a communication dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure P-6) was issued to the petitioner asking to offer alternate land on the advertised location in the name of family unit of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and lessor, namely, Sh. Khem Singh got the lease-deed dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-7) rectified and an intimation in this regard was given to the General Manager, LPG (Sales)-respondent No.2 vide letter (Annexure P-8). It was also clarified that no road was passing between Khasra No.56//19/2 and 20/1. The document of clarification from the concerned Revenue authority was also annexed. However, vide letter dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-10), the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.
On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents it is contended that after field verification vide letter dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was asked to clarify from Revenue Authorities regarding the road in between khasra No.56//19/2 and 20/1. The petitioner was also asked to provide alternate land, if any. Heard.
The question involved in the present petition is as to what is the effect of rectification of lease deed. The case of the petitioner is that in the original lease deed dated 15.03.2017, the description of the land was given as Khewat No.61, Khatoni No.73, Killa No.56//19/2 (2K-0M) of Village Behlolpur for area measuring 24 meters x 34 meters as per Jamabandi for the year 2010-11. Since the description of Khasra number was incorrectly typed i.e. Killa No.56//19/2 instead of 56//10/2 and as such the registered rectification lease deed dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-7) was made between the petitioner and lessor, namely, Sh. Khem Singh. It has been specifically mentioned in the rectification deed that the correct Khasra number of the area 2 Kanal-0 marlas (24 meters x 34 meters) is Khewat No.66, Khatoni No.77, Killa No.56//10/2 as per Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 situated at village Behlolpur.
In Brij Lal and others vs. Kartar Kaur (Deceased) by Legal Representatives and others 1989(1) R.R.R. 30, it was held as under:- "What happened was that the parties, in fact, entered into a
sale transaction respecting 39 Bighas 8 Biswas of land, but by inadvertent mutual mistake two khasra numbers were not mentioned in the sale deed. In such circumstances, the vendees could well approach the Court under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act for rectification of the sale deed. Instead of resorting to the Court for rectification the parties mutually agreed to execute a rectification deed, that is Exhibit P-8. This document, therefore, cannot be said to be as extraneous evidence meant to supply any defects as envisaged under Section 93. Being a deed of rectification it forms part of the original sale deed and the sale transaction, in the present case would be deemed to have been completed through these two deeds, the original sale deed and the rectification deed."
It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that even after the change of khasra number, the location and area on the spot remains the same.
In view of above, this Court feels that the basic ground of rejection of candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG Distributorship is not sustainable. The rectification deed was submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order as is reflected in the impugned order (Annexure P-10).
In view of above, the present civil writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-10) is hereby
quashed. The respondents are directed to issue Letter of Intent to the petitioner, if there is no other defect in the candidature of the petitioner.
19.08.2019.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) SN JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No