Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3135 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.08.2009 Tarsem Lal (aged 39 years) s/o Jai Gopal, r/o Mohalla Khokharwale Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur c/o M/s Jai Gopal Vinod Kumar Commission Agents, Anaj Mandi Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur. ..... Appellant. Versus 1.The Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Chairman, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala. 2.The Executive Officer, The Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala. 3.Sanjay Thakur son of K.C. Thakur, r/o H. No. 33- C, Vikas Colony, Patiala. 4.Balkar Singh s/o Surjan Singh r/o village Bhattian, Post Office Nain Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala and now resident of H.No. F-134, Rajpura Colony, Patiala. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. K.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --2-- Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the appeal was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be physical handicapped having 70% disability, as a blind person. The Improvement Trust, Patiala, vide notice dated 20.12.2000 advertised the scheme for allotment of plots, which was published in almost all the daily newspapers, in Punjab which included the Tribune, Punjab Kesari and Ajit. The said scheme was known as Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --3-- for the development scheme to develop Shahid Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar, Patiala. It was further stated that, in the said scheme, there were different reserve categories, including reservation for physically handicapped persons. It was further stated that the plaintiff applied for allotment of plot, measuring 250 square yards and submitted an application on 08.01.2001, alongwith the requisite documents and a sum of Rs.25,000/- being earnest money. It was further stated that he (plaintiff) also applied for another plot of 200 square yards, vide application dated 30.12.2000 and submitted the relevant documents alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As per the advertisement, published in the newspaper dated 20.12.2000, only those persons, belonging to the physically handicapped category having 70% to 100% disability, could apply for allotment of the plots. It was further stated that lateron the Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --4-- Trust with malafide intention, and to accommodate their own partymen/ persons reduced the percentage of disability of 70% to 100% and advertised that the persons having 40% to 100% disability, could apply for the allotment of the plots. It was further stated that the advertisement for reduction in disability was not published upto 10.01.2001 i.e. the last date for receiving the applications. It was published on 13.01.2001 in the Tribune. It was further stated that defendant nos.1 and 2 were not competent to extend the date or to reduce the percentage of disability by issuing the subsequent publication, after the closure of the earlier date. It was further stated that the process was done secretly. It was further stated that the plot measuring 250 square yards, was allotted to Sanjay Thakur, whereas plot measuring 200 square yards, was allotted to Balkar Singh, defendant nos.3 and 4, who were Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --5-- having less than 70 per cent disability. On account of reduction of the disability, the plaintiff (now appellant) was not allotted the plots, applied for, by him. It was further stated that the allotments of plots, made in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. The defendants were many a time, asked to cancel the allotments of plots,in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4, but to no avail. On their final refusal to accept the request of the plaintiff, left with no alternative, a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction was filed. 3. Defendant nos. 1 and 2, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing joint written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the suit was bad for want of service of notice under Section 98 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act; that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable; that the plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --6-- had no locus standi to file the suit since he had withdrawn the amount deposited; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter; and that the suit was barred by limitation. It was admitted that defendants no.1 and 2, advertised the scheme for allotment of plots, in the newspapers. It was further admitted that defendant nos. 3 and 4 applied for the plots. It was further stated that in fact, the Government instructions were to the effect that allotment of plots to the handicapped persons, could be given only to those persons, who were having minimum disability of 40%. Thus, the disability was wrongly advertised to the extent of 70% and then it was reduced from 70% to 40%, as per the Government instructions, referred to above. It was further stated that after the reduction of the percentage of disability, the last date of receipt of the applications, was extended from Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --7-- 10.01.2001 to 20.01.2001 and the public notice was given in the newspaper, 'The Tribune'. It was denied that the reduction, in the percentage of disability was made, just with a view to accommodate certain persons. It was further denied that the allotments, in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4, were illegal. The remaining averments, contained in the plaint, were denied, being wrong. 4. Defendant nos. 3 and 4, also put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing separate written statements, wherein, they denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was stated that the allotments of plot, in their favour, were legal and valid. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1- Whether the allotment of the plots for reserve category of handicapped vide draw dated 14.3.2001 is illegal, null and void ?OPP Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --8-- 2- Whether any mandate is liable to be issued directing defendants nos. 1 and 2 to allot plot nos. 880 and 1127 to the plaintiff ?OPP 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4- Whether the suit has been filed within limitation ?OPD 5- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6- Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 98 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1992 ? OPD 7- Relief.” 6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --9-- 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009. 8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents on record, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per the advertisement for allotment of plots, published in the newspaper, dated 20.12.2000, only those persons were entitled, who were having 70% to 100% disability and the last date for submitting the applications was 10.01.2001. It was further submitted that, lateron, defendant nos. 1 and 2, without any authority, extended the last date, by reducing the percentage of minimum Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --10-- disability from 70% to 40%, just to accommodate their own persons, which was illegal. He further submitted that the allotments made in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4, were illegal, and, as such, were liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion,the appeal deserves to be dismissed,for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --11-- has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at, by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 were required to act according to the instructions, contained in the Punjab Government letter No.18/50/87/2PPI/15344 dated 22.08.1989. From this letter, it is evident that the percentage fixed for the physical handicapped persons is 40%. Earlier the Improvement Trust had published the advertisement that the persons, who were having 70% to 100% disability, were entitled to apply for the plots, in the Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --12-- aforesaid scheme. As soon as the mistake was detected, they made a fresh publication stating therein, that reduction in the percentage of disability, had been made in accordance with the Punjab Government letter, referred to above, and, as such, the persons, who were falling within that percentage of disability, could apply for a plot, in the aforesaid scheme. There is nothing, on the record, that this was done with a view to accommodate their own persons, by defendant nos. 1 and 2. Even otherwise, it is evident from para no.10 of the judgment of the trial Court, that on 10.01.2001 when the plaintiff applied for the allotment of plot, in both the categories, there were so many other applicants, who had applied for the plots, reserved for physical handicapped persons. 12. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that defendant nos. 1 and 2 were competent to reduce the percentage of disability in Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 2009 --13-- accordance with the Punjab Government letter, referred to above; that it was not done to accommodate their own persons, and that the allotments in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4 were legal and valid, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, and are liable to be upheld.The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, being without merit,must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 27.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE