IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. MODEL TOWN EXTENSION CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE hearing C.W.P. No. 4873 of 2003, filed in public interest, certain startling facts revealing connivance of staff of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana in helping the private respondents to grab the property of the Trust/Govt. came to our notice. We were informed about RSA pending before this Court connected with the same property and we, accordingly, directed that the file of RSA No. 1266 of 2005 (year wrongly mentioned as 2004) titled Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Model Town Extension Club be put up along with the writ petition, which was admitted to be heard by Division Bench. We have been constrained to notice that the writ petition is pending adjudication since March, 2003 and apparently strained efforts were made by the official respondents to say that it was not maintainable and hence should be dismissed. The allegations made in the petition are that respondents No. 4 and 8 in connivance with and at the instance of respondents No. 1 to 3 have illegally constructed a hotel known as Hotel Marriot on the land measuring 700 square yards belonging to Government/Trust, which is stated to be worth crores of rupees. It is also alleged that the official-respondents No. 1 to 3 never took any action against the private respondents. As can be seen, the official respondents maintained that writ petition needs to be dismissed as decrees passed by the civil Courts were being challenged through the writ petition, which as per the respondents, was beyond the scope of jurisdiction of writ Court. The official respondents remained quite evasive about the action on their part to challenge the decrees passed by the civil Court if indeed the land belonging to the Government had been usurped by the private respondents by constructing the hotel. Official respondents joined in chorus with private respondents to say that the petitioner had no locus to file the petition and hence it be dismissed with heavy costs. We are amazed to notice that they were least concerned in telling us as to what action has been taken to impugn the judgments passed by the civil Courts. The written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Administrative, Ludhiana Improvement Trust termed the writ to be misleading and not maintainable though it had been disclosed that the Trust was the owner of the land on which allegedly this hotel had been constructed. In fact we were almost misled by these submissions regarding its maintainability and had expressed doubts about maintainability of the writ petition in our order dated 21.4.2006. When the dereliction on the part of the Improvement Trust officials indicating their connivance to help private respondents started receiving our attention, an affidavit was filed by Dyal Chand Garg, Executive Officer, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana disclosing the follow up action taken by the Trust against its employees for not properly acting in this case. The actual involvement of the employees and the action of the private respondents in grabbing the Government/Trust land then clearly dawned on us. This affidavit filed on May 19, 2006 revealed that the land measuring 15125 square yards of respondent No. 9 was acquired by the Improvement Trust in 1970. 54% of the land belonging to the Society was exempted by the Improvement Trust on 21.8.1990, 46% of land so exempted, thus remained in the ownership of the Trust. Respondent No. 4, being President and acting as Honorary Secretary, Model Town Extension Club along with his wife (claiming to be President of the Club) applied to the Trust for allotment of land measuring 700 square yards. Strangely, the Improvement Trust consented to the use of this land by the society as a caretaker, of course, with the rider that no one will be allowed to encroach the same. This proved to be a first step in the efforts of private respondents to grab this valuable land. It is further revealing that the Trust had learnt that certain persons tried to illegally sell the plots of the aforesaid land and as such it issued notices prohibiting the same. The Trust had then withdrawn the consent given to the Club as a caretaker. The possession was sought back but the Club never complied with the same. Thus, the land belonging to the Trust remained in illegal possession of this so called Club. In this affidavit, it has been conceded that the hotel had been constructed on this land. Sale deed dated 29.1.1992 has been described as sham, void, false, forged and fabricated document. This, in our opinion, is definitely so because the sale was executed by respondent No. 9 (in writ petition) in favour of respondents No. 4 and 8. It is then that the matter went to the civil Court. In civil suit, judgment Annexure P22 was passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 2.12.1999. It is here that the officials of the Trust apparently to favour the private respondents did not to challenge the said judgment with an aim to help the private respondents. Ultimately regular regular second appeal was half heartedly filed before this Court now in the year 2006 after a delay of 782 days. This regular second appeal incidently came to be placed before one of us on 5.5.2006. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal had also been moved. WHILE explaining the reasons seeking condonation of delay, it was disclosed that some of the officials of the Trust had connived with Vijay B. Verma (respondent No. 4) in the writ petition in grabbing the land by not intentionally filing any appeal. The perusal of C.M. No. 3352-C of 2005 filed in this RSA would show that even the file had been misplaced by the erring official and it could be dealt with only in September 2002 while judgment in this case had been passed in 1999. Then copy of judgment was obtained and Advocate was engaged for filing the RSA. Trust had gone to the extent of leveling blame against the Advocate of High Court for not filing the second appeal. It is also disclosed that two Advocates were changed. Ultimately, the appeal came to be filed by engaging a third counsel. When the appeal came up for hearing on 5.5.2006, application was got dismissed as withdrawn to file a fresh application with better particulars. The permission was granted. We find that no application with better particulars has been filed. This we came to learn when the record of RSA No. 1266 of 2005 was called for hearing with the writ petition referred above. The officials of the Trust have thus given full support to private respondents not only to grab this Government property worth crores but have allowed him to construct a hotel thereon. They still have audacity to blame the counsels for not filing the second appeal in time. During the course of arguments, we have leant that no one came to provide assistance to the counsel engaged earlier for making proper application explaining the delay in filing the RSA. Having regard to these revealing facts, we don't consider ourselves bound by any technicality to interfere in this matter. We do not feel helpless to cope up with situation and cannot be a silent spectator to this fraud played by all private and official respondents, specially of the Improvement Trust. We would admit this appeal, to be heard with CWP No. 4873 of 2003 by condoning the delay of 782 days in filing the RSA. Writ petition stands already admitted. Connected appeals too have been adjourned to 2.11.2006.

(2.) THIS RSA be taken up for hearing along with the writ petition and other connected appeals, on 2.11.2006.