R.S.A. No. 579 of 2007 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 579 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2008 Surinder Nath Mayor and another Appellants v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. O. P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the appellants. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff (now represented by his legal heirs) is in second appeal against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for mandatory and permanent injunction praying for a direction to respondent No.1- Jalandhar Improvement Trust (for short, `the Trust') to make allotment of balance area measuring 9 marlas 104 square feet of plot No. 8, falling in Development Scheme of 8 Acres and further restraining respondent No.1 from allotting the same to anyone else except the appellants and further restraining it from dispossessing from the said land forcibly or illegally was dismissed. Brief facts are that the land in question along with other land was acquired by the Trust by issuing notice under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (for short, `the Act') dated 5.11.1955. The appellants made a request vide letters dated 19.11.1955, 16.4.1956 and 28.4.1959 for exemption of the constructed portion out of the acquired land. On a consideration of the request made by the appellants, the Trust granted permission and allowed the appellants to deposit Rs. 75/- per marla for lay out in the area in which the house was constructed and as per measurement, an area of 4 marlas and 192 square feet was released. On receipt of letter from the Trust, the appellants deposited a sum of Rs. 370/- as required. After remaining silent for 13/14 years thereafter, the appellants moved an application for exemption of the remaining portion of the land. The request of the appellants having not been accepted, the suit was filed on 1.12.1992. Finding the claim to be totally misconceived, both the learned courts below dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the area in question was acquired way back in 1955, portion of the land, the allotment of R.S.A. No. 579 of 2007 [ 2] which is sought from the Trust, is still in possession of the appellants and in fact, they had promised to release this land initially vide letter dated 16.6.1961. However, the entire land having not been released in spite of repeated representations made by the appellants, they did not have any other option but to file the suit which was required to be decreed on the basis of material placed on record by them. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. From a perusal of the facts on record, it is patently clear that the dispute which the appellants wanted to get adjudicated from the court was stale one. The land in question was acquired way back in 1955. On a request of the appellants, constructed portion measuring 4 marlas 192 square feet was released on payment of fee @ Rs. 75/- per marla, which was deposited by the appellants and accordingly, the portion was released in the year 1961. It was nearly 13-14 years thereafter that again a request was made for released the open area lying along the constructed portion measuring 9 marlas and 104 square feet with the plea that the same was still lying vacant and the appellants were ready and willing to pay the fee for release thereof also, but such a plea could not possibly be accepted for the reason hat after the acquisition, the entire land vested in the Trust to be dealt with in terms of the provisions of law. The appellants had lost right, title or interest in the property which had vested in the Trust. They could not even plead that the land in question be transferred to them on the current prices as any property vested in a public authority is always to be disposed of as per the procedure established in law for the purpose. The argument that in the year 1961, the disputed land stood exempted from acquisition is totally misconceived as it was only the constructed portion which was released on payment of fee and the same attained finality after the appellants paid the requisite fee. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.11.2008 mk