SUNIL KOHLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) 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 defendant-Trust, 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.

(3.) 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.