Sunil Kohli vs State of Punjab and another

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is plaintiff''s second appeal whose suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.

Plot No. 447 in the Development Scheme of 55 acres is stated to have been allotted to Sunil Kohli the plaintiff, by the Improvement Trust, Jullundur, vide letter, Exhibit P. 2 dated July 6, 1977. According to the plaintiff, the said allotment was later on cancelled vide letter, Exhibit P.6, dated July 16, 1979. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 3,300/ being the one fourth price of the said plot allotted to him. According to the plaintiff, the said order of cancellation Exhibit P.6, is illegal and not binding upon him. He, therefore, prayed for the grant of the mandatory injunction directing the Improvement. Trust to abide by the letter and to deliver him possession thereof. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that vide letter Exhibit P.2, it was made clear to the plaintiff that his case for allotment of the plot had been referred to Government for approval and in the meanwhile he should deposit a sum of Rs. 3,300/ on account of one fourth sale price of the plot. According to the defendantTrust, the Government had not approved the said allotment, hence the same was cancelled vide letter Exhibit P.6, dated July 16, 1979. The plaintiff filed the present suit on July 25, 1981. The trial Court found that there was no justification for the cancellation of the allotment of the plot already made in favour of the plaintiff. According to the trial Court, the said order was illegal, void, uncalled for and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that there was no valid allotment of plot in favour of the plaintiff. The same was subject to the approval of the State Government. Thus, no valid contract as such had come into existence between the parties. Since there was no order of the Government giving approval to the said allotment, the same was rightly cancelled vide Exhibit P.6. Consequently, the plaintiff''s suit was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant submitted that under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act), no approval of the State Government was necessary in the present case. Besides, before cancelling the allotment, the plaintiff was entitled to be heard. Since the order of cancellation, Exhibit P. 6 had been passed without hearing the plaintiff, the same was liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

On the other hand, the defendant Trust submitted that subsection (2) of Section 72E of the Act provides that the State Government may exercise all powers necessary for the performance of the duty embodied in the provisions of this section, and may among other things, by order, in writing, annul or modify any proceeding which it may consider not to be in conformity with law or with such rules as aforesaid, or for the reasons, which would in its opinion justify an order by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 72B. Thus urged the learned counsel, since the State Government did not approve the allotment in favour of the plaintiff, the same was validly cancelled vide order, Exhibit P.6. The learned counsel also produced a copy of the letter dated September 26, 1980, from the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government and Urban Development, to the address of the Administrators, all Improvement Trusts in the State. By virtue of the said letter, as a matter of policy, the State Government rejected all the recommendations made by the chairmen of the Improvement Trusts for allotment of plots to various persons out of Government quota.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

Exhibit P. 2 clearly provides :

"Your case for the allotment of plot has been referred to the Government for approval. In the meanwhile, you are requested to please deposit a sum of Rs. 3,300/ on account of 1/4th sale money of plot No. 474."

It is, therefore, evident that the plaintiff''s allotment of the said plot was subject to the approval of the State Government. Vide order, dated July 16, 1979, Exhibit P.6, this allotment was cancelled, because no approval of the Government thereto was received by the trust till then. Under Section 72E of the Act, the State Government is authorised to exercise all powers necessary for the performance of this duty and by order, in writing, annul or modify and proceeding which it may consider not to be in conformity with law or with rules. That being so, the State Government could pass the order of cancelling the allotment if any, made in favour of any person by the Improvement Trust.

The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he should have been heard before cancelling the allotment has no merit as he was unable to satisfy this Court that there was any approval of the State Government thereto meanwhile. Moreover, in these circumstances, the lower appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no valid contract between the Trust and the plaintiff regarding the allotment of the plot, which the plaintiff could enforce by filing the present suit. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity therein as to be interfered with in second appeal.

Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.