Dismissed

Suresh Gupta v. Improvement Trust Ludhiana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2019RSA/2640/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff-appellant filed a second appeal for a permanent injunction challenging an illegal flat allotment. The single-judge oral order dismissed the appeal, noting the Government of Punjab (effecting the allotment cancellation via show cause notice) was not impleaded and the suit lacked maintainable cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal for permanent injunction was dismissed.

Suresh Gupta Vs Improvement Trust Ludhiana etc. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.2640 of 1997 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2640 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Order:07.01.2019

Suresh Gupta

..Appellant

Versus

The Improvement Trust, Ludhian and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶13

Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while dismissing suit for grant of a decree of permanent injunction.

¶14

Plaintiff claims that he was allotted Flat NO.5-TF 3^rd Floor in 8.4 acres Development-cum-Housing Recommendation Scheme at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. He claims that a show cause notice has been issued to him by the Government of Punjab under Section 72(e) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Government of Punjab has not been impleaded as party. Still further no material has been placed to what has happened to the cause of action. The Government of Punjab had issued show cause notice while noticing the following illegalities in the allotment:-

¶15

“i) The then Chairman Improvement Trust, Ludhiana did not follow procedure for allotment of such flats under Rule 8 and 11 of the Utilization of land and Allotment of Plots Rules 1983 while making allotment in your favour. This

¶16

NARESH KUMAR 2019.01.14 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.2640 of 1997 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

allotment was made in your favour in violation of the provision of these rules.

¶20

(ii) It was pre-requisite to deposit the earnest money along with the application for the allotment of flat but you did not deposit the same along with the application in the first instance.

¶21

(iii) The requisite affidavit as provided under the allotment Rules ibid was not submitted with your application and no proof of your annual income at the time of allotment was furnished while applying for the same.

¶22

(iv) The Chairman was not competent to make such an allotment in the manner it was done and as such this allotment is illegal one.

¶23

(v) You submitted an application for the allotment of a flat and without following the procedure and without submission of the documents required and got this allotment made in your favour in collusion with the Chairman and such an allotment which was got made with unfair means cannot be given effect.

¶24

(vi) You failed to deposit the first installment within the stipulated period and furnish the documents required from you within time.

¶25

(vii) You failed to execute the agreement deed for the sale of his flat within stipulated period and as such not binding contract has come into being between the parties.”

¶26

Since, the allotment was sought to be annulled by the

¶27

NARESH KUMAR 2019.01.14 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

-3-

¶29

RSA No.2640 of 1997 (O&M)

¶30

Government which was not impleaded as a party to the litigation, therefore, the suit has rightly been dismissed by the courts being not maintainable.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if any illegality has been committed by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, still he cannot be made liable for the same.

¶32

This court has considered the submission but find no merit

¶33

therein.

¶34

The property belongs to a public body and such body or its officials are expected to carry out allotment in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules. Still further, learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to inform the court as to what has happened to the show cause notice. This is only a simpliciter suit for injunction.

¶35

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the regular second appeal is dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to challenge the order of cancellation passed, if permissible in law.

¶36

January 07, 2019 nt	(ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶37

NARESH KUMAR 2019.01.14 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Suresh Gupta v. Improvement Trust Ludhiana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Gupta v. Improvement Trust Ludhiana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soma Devi Vs Joginder Pal

(O&M) Mohinder Singh etc. Vs Leela Devi etc.

Harbhajan Singh and Others Vs Harjinder Singh and Another

Uco Bank,Budhakhera Vs Jarnail Singh

Gurmej Singh Vs Joginder Singh

(O&M) Balwant Singh etc. Vs Mohar Singh etc.