AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. KULWANT SINGH DED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to decide six connected Regular Second Appeals, five of which, bearing Nos. 3738 of 1997, 1410, 1412 of 1993, 2626 and 2627 of 1994 have been filed by the Improvement Trust, whereas one, bearing No. 1257 of 1990 has been filed by Narinder Kumar Kapoor. Insofar as Narinder Kumar Kapoor is concerned, he was not successful in his suit filed by him for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking setting aside the order dated December 4, 1987 vide which plot bearing No. D-185 was cancelled by the Improvement Trust. Narinder Kumar Kapoor, even though was successful before the trial Court, he lost his cause in an appeal preferred by the Improvement Trust. In other R. S. As. the suits instituted by the respondents have been decreed by both the Courts.

(2.) R . S. A. 3738 of 1997 came up for motion hearing before me on December 11, 1997. As learned counsel for the appellant in R. S. A. aforesaid, was not able to convince this Court to take a view different than the one taken by the trial Court, but had stated that connected R. S. As. stood admitted, I directed the office to put up that case alongwith connected R. S. As. Some how, however, in the order dated December 11, 1997 numbers of the R. S. As. could not be incorporated as the counsel had promised to give the numbers when the order was passed but later did not turn up. However, on a later date, number of the R. S. As. were traced and on December 19, 1997 it was ordered that the appeals be listed for hearing. It is in this situation that all the appeals have been put up for final hearing.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case. This Court is of the view that there is no need to discuss the matter threadbare as the controversy involved herein stands clinched by a judgment of this Court in Mangal Dass Arora v. The State of Punjab and Ors. , (1997-1)115 P. L. R. 43. Whereas, the plaintiffs sought remedy from the Civil Court, Mangal Dass, in the case aforesaid, an allottee from the same scheme, sought his remedy by way of a civil Writ Petition which was allowed by R. L. Anand, J. In view of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, as mentioned above, there is no need at all to deal with the matter in detail. Suffice it, however, to say that the appellant Trust in R. S. A. No. 2627 of 1994 inserted an advertisement for allotment of plots on March 21, 1985. The plots were to be allotted in the scheme known as Ajnala Road Extension Scheme. Pursuant to the advertisement, referred to above, plaintiff/respondent applied on April 10, 1985. He was successful in the draw of lots that was held on October 21, 1986 and, as mentioned above, was allotted plot No. D-162. He was asked to furnish some documents on December 9, 1986. He complied with the directions aforesaid and submitted the requisite documents on December 18, 1986. The Trust sent the matter to the Government for approval and the Government in turn refused to give the approval vide order dated June 9, 1987. Pursuant to the order aforesaid passed by the Government, Improvement Trust cancelled the allotment of the plot in favour of the plaintiff in the said case on December 4, 1987. As mentioned above, it is this order of cancellation of the plot that was challenged by way of civil suit. It is quite apparent from reading of the judgments of the Courts below that approval was not granted by the Government and allotment was later cancelled by the Improvement Trust on the basis of a letter dated November 28, 1984 which, inter-alia stated that prior approval had to be obtained from the Government, i. e. , approval prior to allotment of the plot. This very letter has been discussed by R. L. Anand, J. in Mangal Dass Arora's case (supra ). It has been held that the letter is in the nature of executive instructions and can not over-ride the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983. Findings to that effect have been recorded by the learned Judge in para 13 which reads as under: "so far as the merits of the cases of Shri Mangal Dass Arora and Shri Hans Raj Mudh are concerned. I am in agreement with the contentions of Shri B. R. Mahajan and Shri D. S. Pheruman that the cancellation of 'plots in favour of their clients was an illegal act on the part of the Trust and the Government because in the advertisement it was not stipulated by the Trust that the draw of lots should be subject to the approval of the State Government which, in fact, does not come into picture. According to the 1983 Rules the Trust, which is a statutory body, is competent to allot on its own level, once it is satisfied that the applicants are eligible. The applicants were never informed that their allotments would be subject to the approval of the State Government. If there were any instructions issued by the State Government, directing the Trust to seek the prior approval of the Government before allotment of the plots, those instructions were never communicated or conveyed to the persons who got the plots in the draw of lots. By mere executive instructions, even the statutory rules can not be altered or varied. The Government while rejecting the draw of lots has not given any reasons in its Memo. nor the petitioners were heard either by the Trust or by the Government before the cancellation of allotment. For all these reasons the cases of Sarvshri Mangal Dass Arora and Hans Raj Mudh. so far as the merits are concerned, they arc entitled to the allotment of plots. "