Baljit Singh vs Improvement Trust Ludhiana & Anr

Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, claim a right to 2

continue with such allotment even after the

same is cancelled, particularly when such

transfer was effected with the approval of the

Trust, is the question for consideration in the

instant appeal.

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

4. On 11th May, 1989, the appellant herein

acquired the said plot No.91-B from Smt. Verma

and such transfer was also permitted by the

Trust. Surprisingly, however, three months

later on 14th August, 1989, when the appellant

applied for approval of the site plan submitted

by him, he came to learn that the allotment of

plot No.91-B in favour of Smt. Shammi Verma had

been cancelled on the ground that such

allotment had been made by one Shri S.S. Mann,

who was not competent to make such allotment.

The appellant allegedly made various

representations to the respondent Trust and

also to the Government and on consideration

thereof the Trust was directed by the

Government to restore the plot in question to

the appellant and consequently the allotment in

favour of Smt. Verma stood restored. It is the

case of the appellant that since the interest

of Smt. Verma devolved upon him as her approved

transferee, possession of plot No.91-B ought to

have been made over to him.

4

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.

6. The decision of the Chairman of the Trust was

challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition

No.11844 of 2004, wherein various reliefs were

prayed for and in particular for restoration of

plot No.91-B, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. On

being served with notice, the respondents

herein filed their written statement on 23rd

December, 2005, claiming that since the

predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was

ineligible for allotment of the plot in her

name, the appellant could not get a better

right than she enjoyed in respect of plot

No.91-B subsequently offered to her in lieu of

plot No.94-D.

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.

8. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that

the transfer effected in his favour with the

approval of the Trust created an interest in 7

the plot in his favour which was independent of

and not dependent on the allotment made in

favour of Smt. Shammi Verma. It was urged that

after the transfer was effected in his name on

11th May, 1989, a fresh right accrued in the

appellant's favour and Smt. Verma ceased to

have any interest in the plot thereafter and,

in any event, she had no subsisting right in

the plot on 14th August, 1989, when the

allotment was cancelled.

9. It was also urged that the amounts deposited

for allotment of the plot had yet to be

refunded and if the respondents were determined

to re-allot the plot on fresh terms, the

appellant was willing to pay any additional

amount that might be imposed to retain the plot

or even for a fresh allotment in his name, in

the special facts of the case.

10. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant

were vehemently opposed on behalf of the 8

respondents and on their behalf it was

maintained that since the predecessor-in-

interest of the appellant, Smt. Shammi Verma,

was not eligible for allotment of any plot

under the Scheme, the allotment had been

rightly terminated and the appellant could not

derive any right thereto on account of the

transfer made in his favour. According to the

respondents, the appellant would have to sink

or swim with the fortunes of his transferor as

no independent right had been acquired by him

by virtue of such transfer.

11. Having considered the submissions made on

behalf of the respective parties and the

materials on record, we are unable to accept

the case as made out on behalf of the

appellant. We agree with the Chairman of the

Trust that notwithstanding the fact that the

transfer of the plot in favour of the appellant

had been duly approved by the Trust, the

appellant did not acquire any independent right 9

in the plot and he only acquired whatever

rights the transferor or the original allottee

had therein. The position may have been

different if after the transfer a fresh

allotment had been made in favour of the

appellant. The defect in the allotment made in

Smt. Shammi Verma's favour, on account of her

ineligibility to avail of the Scheme for

rehabilitation of Locally Displaced Persons,

was inherited by the appellant as her

transferee. The view taken by the Chairman of

the Trust in his order dated 11th February,

2004 and affirmed by the High Court, cannot be

faulted. However, since the transfer was

effected in the appellant's favour with the

approval of the Trust before the allotment was

cancelled, the appellant's case could have been

treated differently in the special facts

thereof. While the allotment of the plot was

made in Smt. Verma's favour on 28th October,

1982, it was after almost seven years that the

order of cancellation of such allotment was 10

passed by the Trust, during which period not

only had the allotment been altered from one

plot to another plot, but even the transfer in

favour of the appellant had taken place.

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