Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ashok Kumar Jain v. Improvement Trust Kapurthala - RSA-454-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1084 (22 February 2006)


RSA No.454 of 2005(O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.02.2006

Parties Name

Ashok Kumar Jain



Improvement Trust Kapurthala


Present: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate for the appellant JUDGMENT

Civil Misc. No.1554-C of 2006

In view of averments made in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and the date in RSA No.454 of 2005 is pre-poned from 4.7.2006 to today.

RSA No.454 of 2005

Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the respondent-defendant be restrained from taking forcible possession of Plot No.59, measuring 500 sq.yards, in Scheme No.1, Model Town, Kapurthala, in any manner. It was further prayed that respondent be restrained from re-allotting the said plot, to any other individual. It was his case that he was allotted above mentioned plot, being eligible, in draw of lots on 26.11.1985. Allotment letter was issued to him on 27.4.1993 and as per stipulation, he deposited 1/4th

amount of the total sale price of the plot, after adjusting an amount of Rs.10,000/- already deposited by him, as RSA No.454 of 2005(O&M) - 2 -

earnest money with his application. Thereafter, he filed an application alongwith requisite fee for issuance of Site Plan of the plot, in dispute. He also deposited an amount of Rs.17,585/- towards first instalment, Rs.500/- as fee, for supply of site plan of the plot and also Rs.220/- towards charges, for execution of the agreement. Despite many applications made, on his behalf, nothing was done, possession of the plot was delivered to him after persistent efforts on 30.4.1993. Thereafter, when officials of the respondent made an attempt to re-possess the plot, by stating that allotment has been cancelled, he was compelled to file the suit.

It was his case that before passing of order of cancellation, no notice was issued to him. In written statement, respondent refuted the allegations levelled by the appellant, by stating that he by concealing material facts, got allotted the plot in his favour and also in his wife's name.

His wife, immediately, sold the plot allotted to her and as such, in view of rules, the appellant is not entitled to claim the second plot, allotment of which was actually cancelled on 19.9.1997, by passing a resolution.

Amount deposited by him, has been forfeited, as per terms and conditions, under which he applied for allotment of the plot. After contest, suit was decreed. However, the respondent succeeded in appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

It is an admitted fact that on 26.11.1985, in draw of lots, a plot measuring 500 sq.yards was allotted to the appellant and another plot measuring 200 sq.yards was allotted in the name of her wife. She, thereafter, had sold the said plot to a 3rd person. The appellate Court below,

by taking note of Rule 10(3) of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, has held that once plot was RSA No.454 of 2005(O&M) - 3 -

allotted in the name of her wife, the appellant was not entitled to retain the plot allotted to him. Above-mentioned rule reads thus:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1)(2) no person shall be eligible for allotment of a residential plot or multi storey of house who or whose spouse jointly or severally owns a residential plot or house other than an ancestral house in the Union Territory, of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate declared as such under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 or in any area covered under scheme framed under the Act or at Panchkula in the State of Haryana or who being owner as such has disposed of the residential plot or house before or after the commencement of these rules."

This Court feels that the rule has rightly been interpreted by the appellate Court below. It is not in dispute that the plot was allotted to the appellant and her wife in a residential colony, developed by the respondent.

In that scheme, allotment was to be made by draw of lots, on the basis of applications made by the eligible individuals. Rule, referred to above, clearly indicates that if any applicant, owns a residential plot in Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any of the schemes framed under the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, in Punjab or in Panchkula, he would not be eligible to apply for allotment of the plot.

Reading of provisions, referred to above, made it very clear that behind framing of the scheme, it was the object that those individuals who do not own any residential plot in Chandigarh, Punjab and Panchkula, under any scheme and were desirous of setting up their houses in Punjab, were only eligible to get plot by draw of lots. It is an admitted fact that price of RSA No.454 of 2005(O&M) - 4 -

property offered under these schemes, is always less as compared to the market price. Intention of the scheme was to provide one residential plot to a family (husband and wife) on an affordable price. If the interpretation given by the trial Court is accepted, it will negate the object and purpose of framing rules above mentioned. Plots offered were only for those persons, who were interested in constructing their houses and not for any commercial purpose, as has been done by the appellant, by selling plot allotted to her wife, in the said scheme. The appellate Court below, by rightly interpreting the provisions of rules, referred to above, held that it was incumbent for the appellant, to surrender one of the plots, allotted to him and her wife. It appears that instead of showing his straight forwardness, the appellant, with a view to conceal allotment in the name of her wife, sold the plot allotted to her. All objections, which could have been raised by the appellant, in case notice was issued to him, before cancellation of his plot, were considered by the appellate Court below, as such, the appellate Court was justified in ignoring objection of the appellant, that the respondent has violated the principle of natural justice. Furthermore, once, it has been held that the appellant was guilty of violating of rules, no injunction can be issued in favour of such an individual.

In view of findings given by the appellate Court bellow in paragraph Nos.10 to 14, this Court feels that the appellate Court below was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and dismissing the suit of the appellant. No substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments, which may necessitate any interference by this Court in pure findings of fact arrived at by the appellate Court below.


February 16, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk Judge

RSA No.454 of 2005(O&M) - 5 -


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.