R.S.A.No.258 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.258 of 2009 Date of Decision : 07.08.2009 Veer Bhan ...Appellant Versus The Improvement Trust, Gurgaon and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Jaswinder Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby the decree granted by the trial Court restraining the defendants, was set aside. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he is in possession of the land measuring 25' x 15.6” adjacent to his shop within the municipal limits of Gurgaon. Since, he was in possession of the said land for more than 12 years, he filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering in possession of the plaintiff. An application for ad interim injunction was also filed, which was declined by the Courts below. However, this Court in Revision petition No.3723 of 1998 passed an order on 5.3.1999 in view of the correspondent between the parties relating to sale of the said plot to the petitioner at the market price. In R.S.A.No.258 of 2009 2 view of the said correspondence, the respondents therein, were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner (the present appellant) from the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It was also ordered that the decision regarding allotment and possession of the plot in dispute be taken within six months from the said date. After the said order was passed, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- on 16.4.1999 allegedly towards cost of 45 square yards at the rate of Rs.3200/- per square yard and rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for the last 15 years. A composition fees of Rs.500/- was also deposited. Consequent to the said deposit, the appellant withdrew his suit on 18.5.1999. Thereafter, the plaintiff alleged to have raised construction on the basis of deemed sanction of the site plan dated 22.9.1999. Thereafter, the present suit for injunction was filed for restraining the defendants from interfering in the right of raising construction by the plaintiff as per the said site plan. The plaintiff alleged that the said plot was allotted to him in terms of the demand raised. The plaintiff has deposited the amount of Rs.1,62,500/- and that he has become full owner in possession of the suit property. On 22.2.1999, he has submitted site plan for sanctioning of the same and deposited Rs.655/- as the necessary fee. Since the site plan was not sanctioned, therefore, it was deemed to be sanctioned and consequently he has raised two-storey construction over the said area. In reply, it was pointed out that Development Scheme No.13 was prepared by the Improvement Trust vide notification dated 27.8.1976 and an area of 61.42 square yards was left out for public utility R.S.A.No.258 of 2009 3 convenience for lavatory/toilet. On an area measuring 29.26 square yards toilet was constructed in the year 1976 and the remaining area was left open for expansion of toilet in future. It is the said area, which has been used by the plaintiff. It is also averred that the plaintiff in collusion with Lekh Ram, the then Head Clerk of the Improvement Trust, Gurgaon, managed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- in the office of the defendants, but no allotment letter regarding the land in dispute was ever issued by the Improvement Trust. It was, thus, also averred that the Improvement Trust was not competent to sell the land of public utility convenience and that commercial plot/land can only be sold through auction only. No resolution was passed by the Improvement Trust to allot the land to the plaintiff and, therefore, on deposit of Rs.1,62,500/- the plaintiff cannot claim ownership rights. The learned trial Court decreed the suit applying the principle of 'promissory estoppel', but in appeal the said judgment and decree was rightly set aside. It has been found that as per scheme No.13 Ex.D-3, the plot in dispute was meant for Public Utility Convenience and vide notification Ex.D-2, the land was to remain in possession of defendant No.1 till the time it was transferred to defendant No.2. The plot could not have sold or transferred by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. There is no legal allotment by defendant No.1 of the plot to the plaintiff nor any legal hand over of possession of the plot in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot claim promissory estoppel against the defendants merely on deposit of Rs.1,62,500/-. There is no decision of defendant No.1 regarding allotment of plot in question to the plaintiff. R.S.A.No.258 of 2009 4 The letter Mark-A dated 15.4.1999 allegedly written by Lekh Ram, Head Clerk of Improvement Trust, was found to be fictitious and that it was held that it appears an act of collusion of the plaintiff when the said Lekh Ram. The said collusion is apparent from note put up by Lekh Ram on the site plan submitted by the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff has won the case from the High Court and that the plaintiff has filed a site plan for sanction. It was found that the said report of Lekh Ram was misleading as there was no decision of the High Court for the allotment of plot rather a direction was issued to decide the question of allotment. It appears that after the orders was passed by this Court on 5.3.1999 within one month thereof, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- without any resolution of the Improvement Turst and in respect of a land, which was reserved in a scheme for Public Utility Convenience. The deposit of said amount is unilateral without any communication from the defendants in respect of sale of the same. Though even the sale is not permissible, but such unilateral deposit will not create any promissory estopel when the land is reserved for Public Utility Convenience in a scheme duly notified. In fact, the appellant has abused the process of law and successfully resisted the action of the defendants by encroaching upon 45 square yards of land for sufficiently long time. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first R.S.A.No.258 of 2009 5 Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 07.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE