57 V RSA No1481 of 1983 1 1 1 Illl THE HlH COURT OF PUNJAB AND F4RYANA AT CNDIGARH RSA No 1481 0983 Date ofdecision 23 7010 1 r The Jullunder Improvement Trust Appellant 0 C versus I C5 Karain Singh I Z CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTlCE KCURI Q Present Allr TGujral Advocate for theappellant I None for the 08 KCPURI J m Z Thi s is regularsecond appealdoiorectedby ITheJalandhar tl Trust impugning 15311983passedby Shri MS1una Additional DistrictoJudgeJalandhar whoIaffirmed the 1 dated 1221981 passedby Sub JudgeIst Class vide which the suit of plaintiffwas decreed Brieflythe facts gathered from the record are tlt theplaintiff filed the SUlt seekingdecree for declaration to theeffect that order dated 931978 cancelling allotment of plot measuring8 marlas in Development Scheme of 25 acres on RingRoad Jullunder in his favour was illegalmalaefide unconstitutional arbitrary and Urisdiction 11 The also prayedfor permanentinjuncti Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 1 RSA N 1481 of 1983 2 f 1 the 8om makingallotmentofthe said plot to sbme one else lt has been 81rtherallegedthat accepting the offer of the the plaintiffdepositedRs7001 on 2821977 and Rs38585ps on 4 1977 as full priceof the said plot and thete was a m complete contract binding on both thepartiesBut the lateron refusedand hencethe suit 0 0 The filed written statement andlinteralia I C5 allegedthat the got the said plot alloue4through I as he was not LocallyDisplaced Person and Z the order of cancellation passed in this behalf was justified The purchase of the plotby the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 283il 965was r denied for want of knowledgeThe suit was alsochallenged 04 technical 1 08 objections also 4 From the pleadingsof the parties followinglssues were 7 Z framed ll le Whether the order dated 931978 the plot allotted to the plaintiff1S illegal mala fide void 01 unconstitutionaland without jurisdiction and not bihding upon theplaintiff2 OPP 11 Whether theplaintiffisentitledto thedeclarationipyed for 2 OPP 111 Wlether theplaintiffis entitledto the prayed for7 OPP ivl Whether theplaintifYwas not a local the time ofallotment Ifso to what effect 20PD V Whether the plaintiffhas not deposited the amount as per theterms ofthe allotinentorder Iso to what effdct2OPD Vle Whether the defendant can validlyand cancel the Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 59 4 RSA No1481 of 1983 3 Cj7 plotonce allottedto a person2OPD Vll Relief The partieshaveled their respective evidence in suppt of the aboveissues 1 The leamed trial Court aAer appraisal of the evidenceretumed Q the Onding on issue No12 and 3 in favour ofthe plaintiffand pn 1SSue 0 C NosA5 and 6 againstthe defendant and the suit oofthe I 0 plaintifffordeclaration and injunction was decreed r Feelingdissatisfied with the above said judgnit dated Z 1221981 passedby Sub JudgeIst Class Jullundur the a FirstAppealbefore learnedAdditionalDistrictJudgeJalandharwho also C dismissedtheappeal I OS Still feelingdissatisfied theappellant haspreferred the present appeal b6f0rethis Court W Z I have heard learned counselfor the appellant and Ihavegone Qe through the recordsofthe case Learnedcounsel for the has submittedtlt following substantialquestions of law have arisenin thepresentappeal 1 Whether the allotmentofplotin contraventionto utilization of land and allotment of plotson Rules 1975Rule 7611J ofPunjabTown Act 1922 can be by both the Courts below 2 1 ii Whether the cancellationofplotwithout notice isIviOlativeof principles ofnatural justice on the facts ofthe p1esentcase2 1 Learned counsel for the has there is concurrentfindingof fact recordedbyboth the Courts below t4at plaintiffis Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 W RSA No1481 of 1983 4 4 J not provedto be locallydisplaced person under Rules The plalntiffwas allotted the plot on the of plaintiffthat he is locally displaced person underRules So in thesecircumstancesthe Trust was well within its rightsto cancel the allotment of plot ln 1 questionwhich was allotted to him as locallydisplacedpers6n It 1S submittedthat authority Jalandhar ImprovementTrust VSe 0 C Sineh AIR 1999 Supreme Court 134711 has dealt in this issue t I The Honble ApexCourt in that ruling has held tlt no plot C5 can be allotted to a person who is ineligible1ee llot a locally Z personAIl the relevant rules have been discussed in the above said author It is rther contendedthat the First Appellate Court ls upheld 08 thejudgment of the trial Court on the groundthat there is a violaon of natural justiceinasmuch as no notice was givento the 5 Z cancellation of his allotment It is contended that no notice is 0 wherethe allotment has been made in violation to the Rules and t support this contention leamed counsel for the appellant has relied upon 4uthority The Jalandhar ImprovementTrust Jalandhar VS Harbans Kaur 200311RCR Civill 401 Learnedcounsel for the appellanthas further submittedthat possession of the plotin questionhas been taken aAer the cancellation of allotment I have consideredthe submissionsmadebyleamed codnsel for theappellant andhave gonethrough the recordsofthe case The learnedtrial Court while decidingwhethertheplaihtiffis a Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 ee RSA N 1481 of 1983 5 4 1 Iocal displacedperson has not discussed the said issue but has sitllply thefindingon that issueagainst the defendant The First ApIlate Court in No6 and 7 dealt in the said issue4 and returned a findingthat doesnot fa11under the defuliti 1 of locallydisplacedperson as per Rule 3 under Section 73 of the Punjab 0 Town Act 1922 It was held bythe First AppellateCoun that 0 C owner ofthe plotsince 2851965 The said plotwas acuired I underthe Schemeof25 acres proclaimed on The C5 I plaintiffwas not owner for a continuousperiodof two years 4 Z beforethe tlrst publication of the Schemebythe Trust and as suchh was heldnot to be a locallydisplaced person However First AppellateCourt 0 er held that since there is violation of naturaljusticeionasmuchas no lotice olj was issued prior to the cancellation of the plot allotted in favour pf the plaintiffand as such the order ofcancellation ofplotwas quashed 7 Z Honble Apex Court in No6 of the judgment Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Sampuran Sines case 1SUDral observedas under l On 1891975 the State Govemment a Rule titled as Utilisation of Iand and Allotment of Plots by Trust Rules 1975 Rule 26a9thereof defines local displaced person means a person who is the ow4erof a propertyacquiredby the Trust for the execution of a cheme and has been such owner of a continuousperiodof tw years before the first publication of the Scheme bythe Trust under Section 36 of the PunjabTown Improvement Act 1922 Suberule 6ii9of Rule 7 of the said Rules makes Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 62 V RSA No1481 of 1983 6 1 4 1922 Suberule oil of Rule 7 of the said Rules makes reservation of plotsand tenements lll favour of local displated personsOn 22121983 the State Govemment another Rule titled The PunjabTown Improvetent 1 j 6Utilisation ofLand and Allotment ofPlotslRules 1983 Rule 1 2d9 of the said Rules defines local displacedpersooas 0 0 follows I C5 Local displaced person meansa person who is the ower of any land acquiredbythe Trust for the execution of any sdheme Z under the Act and who has been such owner for a continuous 1 periodof two years before the first publication of r e such schemebythe Trust under Section 36 I 08 In para No of the above said judgmentHonb1e ApekCourt has observed that Rule 429 of the said Rules providesfor mmo Z allotmentin favour ofa local displaced person 1 Om The ultimate conclusion was drawn bythe Apex Coult m para No3 ofthe above said judgmentwhich is as under 44 our opinion before comingto this concllsion the courts below should haveflrst decidedthe questionwhetherthe allotment in favour of those persons was within th6 scope of 1 the Rules applicable If it was not within the sc6pe of the 1 Rules then even thoseallotmentsin favour of otherbersonwill not create a right 111 the respondentsto claim with them mav be ifthe allotmentswere madewronglvin favour 1 1 of those persons the samelnav become liable for dancellation 1 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 1 uJ RSA No1481 of 1983 7 17 1 i if permissiblein law but that will not create an enforceable 1 righton the respondents to claim similar wrongfulallotmentsin t their favour In our opiion even this groundrelied uDon by the High Court as well as the lower appellate court 1S 1 m unsustainable The courts beIow next relied upon the fact that i1 i in regardto some of the respondentsthe trust itself at a point l 0 CA3 of time made allotmentsand acceptedinitial depositstowards I the considerationoftheplot which was subsequentlvcancelled C5 I Based on those facts the courts below held that the Trust 1 Z havingonce allotted the plotsand havingcollected part of the consideration it could not have cancelled the allotmentsl r 4r probablv basing the respondentscase on the principle of I 08 promissorvestoppel Here the coutts below have failed to 4 notice the 1egalprinciple that there isno estoppelagainstlawl n Z The allotment of plots by the Trust 1S bv tl 1 tl statuton7Rules Any allotmentcontrary to thoseRules will 8e againstthe law Since the allotmentsmade in favour of 1 some t of the respondentswas based on wrone applicationof the 1 reservationmade for Iocal displacedPerson those allotinents 1 were contrary to law Hence the principle l of 1 promissoryIequitableestoppelcannot be invoked to protect such illegal allotments In the said Vlew of the matter W6 i unable to sustainthe iudgmentand decreesiinpugnedin these appeals 1 So inview ofthe observationsmade above Slnce the plaintiff Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 eJ RSA N 1481 of 1983 8 7 to allotmentofthe plotas locallydisplaced person So ln Vlew of the above discussion the substantialquestionf lawNo1 8amed above standsansweredagainstthe plaintiffand in favo8r ofthe appellant 4 1 So far as substantial questionNo2 raised bove lS tr concemed the normal rule is that nobodyshould be attendedunhead 0 C However wherethe allotmentis in contraventionof Rules in that case no ofhearinghas to be givento cancel the illegal C5 I plot This aspectof the case has been dealt in by this Court in authority Z The Jalandhar ImprovementTrust Jalandhar VSe Harbans case suprale There is no estoppelagainstlaw The illegalallotment 0 cannot be upheldotherwise the faith of the publicin thejudicialsyem I 08 would erode So in view ofthe abovecircumstancesthe substantialquestion 7 Z of law referredto above in context of the facts of the presentcase stahd8 Ll answeredin favour ofthe appellant So in view of findings of substantialquestionof law 6ndingon issue Nos123 and 6 standreversedbeingerroneous the regularsecondappealstands accepted IThe 1 judgments and decreesofboth the Courts below stand set aside and thelit ofthe dismissed However to meet the ends ofjusticeit is orderedthat in Icase the amount deposited by the plaintiffhas not been returnedto him inlthat case the said amount shall be retumedto him alongwith interest at th rate of6Io per annum from the dateofdeposittill paymentwithin 3 monthrom Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 W RSAVo1481 of 1983 9 todaYe However in view of the peculiarfacts and circumstancesof the case the partiesare left to bear their own costs be prepared A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict C 0 C I C5 July 23rd 2010 SV JUDGE I 1 Z 4 08 7011 5 1 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.05.20 02: 15 True Scaned Copy of Orignal PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document