TARSEM LAL Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be physical handicapped having 70% disability, as a blind person. The Improvement Trust, Patiala, vide notice dated 20.12.2000 advertised the scheme for allotment of plots, which was published in almost all the daily newspapers, in Punjab which included the Tribune, Punjab Kesari and Ajit. The said scheme was known as Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 for the development scheme to develop Shahid Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar, Patiala. It was further stated that, in the said scheme, there were different reserve categories, including reservation for physically handicapped persons. It was further stated that the plaintiff applied for allotment of plot, measuring 250 square yards and submitted an application on 08.01.2001, alongwith the requisite documents and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being earnest money. It was further stated that he (plaintiff) also applied for another plot of 200 square yards, vide application dated 30.12.2000 and submitted the relevant documents alongwith a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. As per the advertisement, published in the newspaper dated 20.12.2000, only those persons, belonging to the physically handicapped category having 70% to 100% disability, could apply for allotment of the plots. It was further stated that lateron the Trust with malafide intention, and to accommodate their own partymen/persons reduced the percentage of disability of 70% to 100% and advertised that the persons having 40% to 100% disability, could apply for the allotment of the plots. It was further stated that the advertisement for reduction in disability was not published upto 10.01.2001 i.e. the last date for receiving the applications. It was published on 13.01.2001 in the Tribune. It was further stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not competent to extend the date or to reduce the percentage of disability by issuing the subsequent publication, after the closure of the earlier date. It was further stated that the process was done secretly. It was further stated that the plot measuring 250 square yards, was allotted to Sanjay Thakur, whereas plot measuring 200 square yards, was allotted to Balkar Singh, defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who were having less than 70 per cent disability. On account of reduction of the disability, the plaintiff (now appellant) was not allotted the plots, applied for, by him. It was further stated that the allotments of plots, made in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. The defendants were many a time, asked to cancel the allotments of plots,in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, but to no avail. On their final refusal to accept the request of the plaintiff, left with no alternative, a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 3 and 4, also put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing separate written statements, wherein, they denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was stated that the allotments of plot, in their favour, were legal and valid.