KULWANT KAUR versus IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Kulwant Kaur v. Improvement Trust Ludhiana & Anr - CWP-11081-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4895 (27 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.11081 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2006

Kulwant Kaur

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Improvement Trust Ludhiana and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

PRESENT: Shri S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri P.K.Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The allotment of a plot in favour of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled by the respondent Improvement Trust.

The aforesaid cancellation order has been challenged by the petitioner through the present petition.

In the written statement filed by the respondent a specific plea has been taken that the allotment of the aforesaid plot has been procured by the petitioner by practicing a fraud upon the trust, inasmuch as, the petitioner had acquired the ownership of the acquired land in the year 1975 but by fabricating documents and in connivance with some officials the said sale deed was shown to be executed in the year 1971. On the basis of the aforesaid fraudulent and fabricated documents, the petitioner had claimed that he had acquired the ownership of the acquired land two years prior to the acquisition and

on that basis had claimed that he was an eligible locally displaced person. Consequently, it is maintained by the Trust that on account of discovery of the aforesaid fraud, an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner and other officials and the matter is under investigation.

Shri S.S.Salar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, contends that the controversy with regard to the plot in question had attained finality upto the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and even this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the Trust had directed that the allotment of the plot be made in favour of the petitioner and the possession thereof be handed over to her. In these circumstances, Shri Salar maintains that it was not open to the Trust, at this stage, to revive the whole controversy all over again.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also having taken into consideration the pleas raised by them, we are satisfied that once the Trust has maintained that the very bases of allotment in favour of the petitioner was a fraud perpetuated by her and an FIR in this connection has already been lodged against the petitioner and other conniving officials, then in such a situation, the petitioner cannot be heard to claim that he was still entitled to the allotment of plot. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner, if accepted, would only lead to perpetuation of the fraud.

Dismissed.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 27, 2006 (A.N. Jindal)

KD Judge

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 |

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