Baljit Singh vs Improvement Trust Ludhiana & Anr

3. There is no dispute that on 28th October, 1982, one Smt. Shammi Verma was allotted plot No.94-D in the Development Scheme of 256 Acres at Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana, under Memo No.9913 dated 26th October, 1982 issued by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. Although, Smt. Verma deposited the amounts which were required to be paid against such allotment, she was informed by the respondent No.1 by its letter dated 2nd January, 1989, that the Trust was unable to make over possession of the plot to her. Subsequently, Smt. Verma was allotted another plot, being No.91-B and an agreement to sell was also executed in her favour. 3

5. However, since the appellant was unable to obtain any relief from the respondents, he filed Civil Writ Petition No.17103 of 2003 before the High Court seeking directions upon the respondents to allot any alternative plot to the appellant in lieu of plot No.94-D in Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana. While disposing of the writ petition on 31st October, 2003, the High Court directed the respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order on the appellant's representation within four months from the date of the order upon production of a certified copy thereof. Pursuant to the said directions, the Chairman of the Trust heard the appellant on 11th February, 2004, but rejected his claim on the ground that although the plot in question had been allotted to Smt. Shammi Verma as a Local Displaced Person, she was not the owner of any portion of the land acquired by the Trust and was not a Displaced Person, which was the eligibility criteria for coming under 5 the Scheme. Even the subsequent change in the allotment was effected by an officer who was neither authorized nor entitled to do so.

7. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant did not have any 6 independent right in the plot and as a transferee his fortunes depended on the fortunes of the transferor. The High Court having dismissed the civil writ petition, any claim made by the appellant either over plot No.94-D or plot No.94-B also stood rejected. However, according to the appellant, since a mistake had been committed by the respondents themselves at the initial stage and various transactions had already taken place in respect of the plot in question, the cancellation of the allotment which stood transferred to the appellant with the permission of the Trust and its authorities, was unacceptable. However, as indicated hereinbefore, the said argument did not find favour with the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, which has given rise to the present appeal.

12. We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal by modifying the judgment and order of the High Court dated 30th January, 2006, and the order of the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana dated 11th February, 2004, and directing the said Chairman to reconsider the case of the appellant in the light of the submissions made on his behalf that he was willing to pay such additional amount as may be levied for a fresh allotment of the plot in question in his favour, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in the event the said plot has not been re-allotted in the meantime. Such consideration must be completed by the Chairman of the Trust within two months from the date of communication of this order and in the event the plot in question has not been re- allotted, the same shall not be re-allotted until a 11 decision is arrived at in terms of the directions given in this order.

13. In the facts of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.

_______________J.

(Altamas Kabir) _______________J.

(Markandey Katju) New Delhi Dated: 6.1.2009