ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST KAPURTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 earnest money with his application. Thereafter, he filed an application along with 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.

(3.) 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 wifes 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.