1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2008 Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Balwant B. Ashtikar through LR - Vijay. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 07, 2008. Heard Shri Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant – original defendant and Shri Vyawahare, Advocate for the respondent – original plaintiff. Shri Chhabra, Advocate contends that Regular Civil Appeal was filed on behalf of the deceased by his legal representative - Vijay. He contends that Vijay is not freedom fighter and hence not entitled to allotment under the Scheme. He further contends that after cancellation of allotment in favour of the deceased Balwant Bakuramji Ashtikar, the plot in question has been allotted to another freedom fighter. He lastly argues that deceased was receiving pension as freedom fighter from Madhya Pradesh Government and from the Maharashtra Government and he was also first Member of Legislative Assembly of 2 Madhya Pradesh. The arguments are opposed by Shri Vyawahare, Advocate, who points out that there was no condition requiring a freedom fighter to draw pension from the Maharashtra Government only. He further states that the Regular Civil Appeal was first filed as First Appeal in the High Court and while admitting First Appeal on 29.7.1998, this Court had granted temporary injunction declaring that any alienation, transfer of said plot in favour of third person shall be subject to result of First Appeal. This order continued to operate even after the matter was transferred to District Court in view of change of jurisdiction. He contends that during the pendency of Regular Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2000 also, therefore, the present appellant could not have created any third party interest without informing the allottee of Court order. The perusal of judgment of lower appellate Court reveals that in the scheme for allotment of plots, there was no condition that such freedom fighter must be receiving pension from the Maharashtra Government only. It is to be noticed that the struggle for independence was over in 1947 and at the relevant time Nagpur and 3 Vidarbha was forming part of Central Province only. The contention that the deceased freedom fighter was Member of Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, also is of no significance. Similarly, the challenge is to the cancellation of allotment by deceased freedom fighter himself and had the allotment not been cancelled wrongfully, the plot would have continued with his family and legal representatives. The status of present appellant as legal representative is not in dispute before me in this Second Appeal. The appellant has not pointed out that they have received any other objection or claim from any legal heir of deceased Balwant, claiming the suit plot. The transfer to third party during the pendency of proceedings is expressly taken care of by the orders of this Court mentioned above. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.