IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3946 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : February 18, 2008 Smt. Har Kaur ....Appellant versus Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the appellant Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by plaintiff is directed against judgment and decree dated 2.9.2005 passed by learned trial court whereby a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from allotting or alienating any plot measuring 250,300, 200 sq. yards by way of open auction or in any other manner to any other person without first allotting one plot to her, was dismissed. Thereafter first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.5.2007 by the first appellate court. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, in fact, here in the instant case, the case of the appellant is not covered by Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules 1983 framed by the respondent-Improvement Trust. Suffice it to say that RSA No. 3946 of 2007 (O&M) -2- plaintiff was owner in possession of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No. 418, Khata No. 220/233, as per jamabandi for the years 1968-69, situated at Taraf Brura, Tehsil Ludhiana. The aforesaid plot of the appellant was acquired and in lieu thereof, she was compensated by respondent-Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Now the grouse of the appellant is that she should be allotted a plot of 250 sq. yards in lieu of her plot measuring 200 sq. yards as per rules of 1964. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the concurrent findings of the courts below, it is apparent that the possession of the plot measuring 200 sq. yards was taken by the respondent for which she has been duly compensated in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show any rule or law for entitlement of the appellant for the allotment of 250 sq. yards plot in lieu of her acquired piece of plot measuring 200 sq. yards only. Moreover, in this case no substantial question of law is shown to have arisen for consideration by this Court. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. Before parting with this order, it is also to add that learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon S.B.Kishore v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 90, Jagdish Rai vs State of Punjab, 1994(3) PLR 508 and Purshotam Dass (died) rep. By L.R. v. The State of Punjab and others, 1996 PLJ 524, a perusal of which goes a long way to show that facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. Hence, no benefit can be derived from the observations made therein by their Lordships. RSA No. 3926 of 2007 (O&M) -3- Since learned counsel for the appellant failed to make out any case for motion or admission, so no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay of 34 days in filing of this appeal. ( Pritam Pal ) February 18, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'