C.W.P. No.8852 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8852 of 1987 Date of Decision:01.02.2010 Hari Om Garg, Clerk, Improvement Trust, Bathinda ....Petitioner Versus The Bathinda Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Chairman ....Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner through the writ petition seeks to quash the resolution dated 03.01.1986 (Annexure P-7) demanding an enhancement of the price of plot. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot reserved for employees of the respondent-Trust by his application dated 01.03.1983. After obtaining details of proof of income from the petitioner to consider the eligibility of the petitioner, allotment of one residential plot had been made by proceedings of the respondent dated 16.04.1986. The petitioner had deposited 25% of the amount on 31.07.1986 and the possession of the property had also been given to him on 27.04.1987. While the demand for an enhancement of the price was asked, the writ petition came to be filed. 2. It is stated in reply by the respondent that subsequent of C.W.P. No.8852 of 1987 -2- the filing of the petition, the petitioner himself had voluntarily deposited total amount of the plot with respondent on 09.03.1989 and the petitioner had also taken the permission of the Trust for transfer of the property to one Subash Kumar s/o Siri Ram. As of now, the petitioner has no subsisting interest in the property and he has no locus standi to file the petition. Further, in view of the fact that the price demanded was also paid subsequently, nothing further survives for consideration in the writ petition. 3. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent pointing out to a subsequent event of transfer of the plot as well as the payment of the amount demanded in the notice, nothing survives for consideration. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 01, 2010 Pankaj*