R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 30, 2011 Bhupinder Singh Dhillon .... Appellant Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 6788-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Defendant no.4 Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, having remained unsuccessful in the trial court and partly successful in the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. Gurbax Singh – plaintiff (since deceased and represented by respondents no.4 to 7 herein as his legal representatives) filed suit against R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Jalandhar Improvement Trust (JIT) – respondent no.1/defendant no.1, State of Punjab – respondent no.2/defendant no.2, Gurbachan Kaur – respondent no.3/defendant no.3 and Bhupinder Singh Dhillon – appellant/defendant no.4. The plaintiff alleged that his land measuring 09 kanals 03 marlas was acquired by JIT for a scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short – the Act). Accordingly, being local displaced person, the plaintiff was allotted suit plot no.1400 by JIT vide memo dated 05.02.1988. The plaintiff accepted the said allotment and sent first installment of 25% of the price thereof to JIT vide Demand Draft dated 22.02.1988. Defendant no.1 JIT, however, returned the said Draft to the plaintiff on the plea that allotment of the plot in favour of the plaintiff had been suspended/stayed by the Regional Deputy Director. Apprehending some mischief, plaintiff instituted Civil Suit on 26.11.1988 against defendants no.1 and 2 herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from allotting the suit plot to anybody else except the plaintiff. During trial of the suit, official of defendant no.1 was examined as witness, who stated that defendant no.1 had allotted the suit plot to Gurbachan Kaur – defendant no.3 herein. Accordingly, plaintiff withdrew the said previous suit and filed the instant suit challenging the allotment of plot to defendant no.3 and subsequent sale thereof by defendant no.3 to defendant no.4. The plaintiff also claimed other ancillary reliefs. Defendants no.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte in the trial R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 3 court. Defendants no.1 and 4, by filing separate written statements, broadly controverted the plaint averments. However, defendant no.1 admitted that plaintiff's land was acquired by defendant no.1 for its scheme. It was, however, denied that residential plot measuring one kanal was offered to the plaintiff as local displaced person. However, it was admitted that suit plot was allotted to the plaintiff, but the allotment was cancelled being in contravention of the rules. No agreement for sale of the plot was executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1. Bank Draft sent by plaintiff was returned to the plaintiff because of stay of allotment of plots by the Regional Deputy Director. Filing of previous suit by the plaintiff against defendants no.1 and 2 was also admitted. However, it was pleaded that allotment of plot to defendant no.3 was not illegal. The said allotment is legal and subsequent transfer of the suit plot by defendant no.3 to defendant no.4 is also in accordance with law. Defendant no.4 inter alia pleaded that he is bona fide purchaser of the suit property in good faith for valuable consideration and having no knowledge about its previous allotment to the plaintiff and the cancellation thereof. It was also pleaded that the then Chairman of defendant no.1 had flouted the law and rules while illegally allotting the suit plot to the plaintiff, on account of which, the allotment was revoked and cancelled and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the said Chairman, who is necessary party to the suit. Various other pleas were also raised. R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no.4 has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2011 and plaintiff's suit has been decreed partly directing defendants no.1 and 2 to hand over vacant possession of plot of 200 sq. yds. to plaintiff and vacant possession of plot of 100 sq. yds. to defendant no.4-appellant as defendant no.3 was wrongly allotted one kanal plot. It has also been ordered that remaining plot shall be ownership of defendants no.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.4 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that from the computerized report of the Office, it appears that legal representatives of plaintiff have already filed R. S. A. No.2457 of 2011 challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. Any observation herein shall have no bearing on the said Regular Second Appeal. It is undisputed, as also proved on record, that the suit plot was allotted by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff vide letter dated 05.02.1988. The plaintiff accepted the said allotment and in accordance with its requirement, sent Bank Draft dated 22.02.1988 to defendant no.1 towards 1/4th of the price of plot, which was to be deposited within one month of the letter. The R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 5 said amount was, however, not accepted by defendant no.1 on the ground that the allotment of plot had been suspended/stayed by Regional Deputy Director. However, it has come in evidence that the alleged stay order of Deputy Director is dated 25.03.1988. In other words, the said stay order was passed after allotment of the suit plot had already been made to the plaintiff on 05.02.1988 and consequently, the said subsequent stay order could not apply to the earlier allotment of the plot already made to the plaintiff. In addition to the aforesaid, allotment of the suit plot to the plaintiff was never cancelled. Since the said allotment was never cancelled, the suit plot could not be allotted to defendant no.3. Consequently, the said allotment is patently illegal and null and void. Subsequent sale of the suit plot by defendant no.3 to defendant no.4 is also, therefore, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid context, it has to be noticed that plaintiff had filed his previous suit against defendants no.1 and 2 on 26.11.1988 and it was during the pendency of the said suit that suit plot was allotted by defendant no.1 to defendant no.3 and was sold by defendant no.3 to defendant no.4. Consequently, the said transfers are also hit by doctrine of lis pendens and defendant no.4 cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser of the suit plot. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual position, suit of the R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 6 plaintiff was rightly decreed by the trial court. It is also significant to notice here that allotment of the suit plot to the plaintiff was never cancelled by defendant no.1 or by defendant no.2. Since the said allotment was never cancelled, the plaintiff is entitled to have the suit plot and allotment thereof to defendant no.3 and subsequent sale thereof by defendant no.3 to defendant no.4 are consequently nonest, illegal and null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The then Chairman of defendant no.1 was allegedly found to have committed some illegalities in allotment of plots. However, the said allotments allegedly did not pertain to local displaced persons, but pertained to other persons. In the instant case, however, the suit plot was allotted to plaintiff being local displaced person, and therefore, it cannot be said that the said allotment was made by way of favour to the plaintiff by the then Chairman of defendant no.1. Moreover, alleged acts of the then Chairman of defendant no.1, unless set aside by competent authority or Court, would continue to bind defendant no.1. In the instant case, allotment of the suit plot to the plaintiff was never cancelled, and therefore, the said allotment still subsists and is valid and binding on all concerned. Allotment of the suit plot to defendant no.3 could be a favour to her, but allotment of the suit plot to the plaintiff was not a favour to the plaintiff. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal preferred by defendant no.4. No question of law, much less R. S. A. No. 2479 of 2011 (O&M) 7 substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal preferred at the hands of defendant no.4. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 30, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE