RSA No. 1689 of 1986 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1689 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.09.2010 The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar .......... Appellant Versus Shri Amrik Singh Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.C. Pathela, advocate for the non-applicant / appellant. Mr. R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 10490-C of 2010 This application has been moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing additional facts / documents on record, on the ground that the matter raised in this appeal by the appellant / non-applicant stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in number of cases. The suit was filed by the plaintiff / respondent for mandatory injunction directing the appellant / defendant to allot one plot under displaced persons category, as his land was also acquired in 25 acres scheme. It was also the case of the plaintiff / respondent that by treating him under displaced persons category plot was in fact RSA No. 1689 of 1986 -2- ***** allotted to him, but the appellant / non-applicant was not accepting the balance payment,on the ground that the allotment was to be cancelled. The learned trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent and directed the defendant / appellant to allot one plot to the plaintiff / respondent under Local Displaced Person category. By way of ad-interim measure one plot was reserved for the plaintiff / respondent by the appellant / defendant. There were number of other similarly situated persons, and the regular second appeal filed by the defendant / appellant against the decision of the learned trial Court was dismissed by this Court. This Court in RSA No. 856 of 1990 titled Smt. Rittu @ Harneet Vs. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman, had accepted the plea of the plaintiff, that she was to be treated as local displaced person by rejecting the stand of the Improvement Trust. The C.M. is allowed. With the consent of the parties main case is taken up for hearing. RSA No. 1689 of 2010 The only substantial question of law raised in this appeal is :- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff / respondent could be treated as local displaced person entitling him to allotment of plot ? The substantial question of law raised herein deserves to RSA No. 1689 of 1986 -3- ***** be answered against the appellant / defendant, in view of the judgments of this Court in RSA No. 1866 of 1985 titled Jullundhur Improvement Trust Vs. Uttam Singh (dead) now represented by L.Rs. decided on 19.3.2010, RSA No. 3471 of 1986 titled Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Mahon and another decided on 1.12.2009 and RSA No. 856 of 1990 titled Smt. Rittu @ Harneet Vs. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman decided on 4.5.2009. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellant / defendant. It may be pertinent to mention here that the defendant / appellant in number of cases, has already decided to accept the balance payment, and make allotment to the displaced persons, in compliance with the judgment of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, finding no merit, this regular second appeal, is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 09.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE