M.L. Singhal, J. - (1.) DR . Gurmit Singh, In -charge Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jamsher, District Jalandhar got his name registered with the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant for the allotment of a plot. He deposited Rs. 10000/ - as earnest money vide book No. 551, serial No. 21 dated 23.7.79 with the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant allotted him plot measuring 12 marla in the Development Scheme 55 acres on Police Lines Road, known as "Master Tara Singh Nagar Scheme" through its memo No.JIT/10317 dated 26.9.79. He accepted the offer of allotment made to him by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust. Jalandhar -defendant and deposited another sum of Rs. 6600/ - through bock No. 572 serial No. 36 dated 8.10,79 towards the price of the plot as per demand made by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant. To his surprise, he got letter No. JIT/8384 dated 15.10.80 from the Administrator, The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant conveying the cancellation of the plot measuring 12 marlas in the development scheme of 5.5. acre known as Master Tara Singh Nagar Scheme in Jalandhar allotted to him earlier vide memo No. JIT/10317 dated 26.7.79 saying that it was a provisional allotment. It was alleged in the plaint that it was incumbent upon the Improvement Trust to have obtained approval to allotment in his favour. He was not given opportunity of being heard and was not apprised of the reason of the cancellation of allotment of plot in his favour. As such their action was illegal, void, wrong, malafide, unwarranted, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and was not binding upon him and for permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab and the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant from re -allotting this 12 marla plot to any other person than him or restraining them from changing or altering the measurements or boundaries of the said plot or erasing the said plot from that scheme and as a consequential relief, he sought mandatory injunction directing them to disclose the number of the plot, boundaries and its situation to the plaintiff and abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Defendants are estopped from taking up the plea of provisional allotment by their act, conduct and acquiescence. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant is deemed to have reserved a plot measuring 12 marlas simultaneously when they allotted it through memo No. JIT/10317 dated 26.9.79.
(2.) THE Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that it was a provisional allotment subject to the approval of the State Govt. This allotment was out of the govt. quota. Plaintiff was made clear that the allotment was subject to the approval of the State Govt. As such, he could not plead ignorance that he was not aware whether his case had ever been sent to the State Govt. for approval. Allotment was cancelled by the Trust in obedience to the orders of the State Govt. dated 26.9.80. Trust asked for the approval of the allotment, but the State Govt. refused to approve the allotment, rather cancelled the allotment. State Govt. was within its right to reject or accept the provisional allotment made by the Trust Question of affording any opportunity to the plaintiff did not arise State Government has control over the working of the Improvement Trusts. Allotment was conditional in nature, hence subject to the approval of the State Govt. As the allotment was out of Govt, quota, the State Govt. exercising the powers vesting in it under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 rejected the allotment of the plot to him by the Trust. There was no privity of con -tract between the plaintiff and the Trust, that the Trust was bound to allot the plot. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the order for cancellation of the plot is illegal and void as alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 5. Relief.
(3.) VIDE order dated 16.9.83, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration that order cancelling the plot dated 15.10.80 was illegal and not binding on him and for consequential relief of permanent injunction directing the defendants to abide by the terms and conditions of allotment letter Ex.P2 and restraining them from re -allotting that plot to any other person and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to disclose the number of the plot and its situation to the plaintiff, in view of his finding that there was no reasonableness or public interest shown to have been injured by the allotment of the plot. It was found that the cancellation of the plot without any reasonable ground, was illegal, unconstitutional and void. It was found that the defendants were estopped by their act and conduct from canceling the plot when the plaintiff had deposited Rs.6,600/ - vide receipt Ex.P3 as per terms and agreement Ex. P2 (allotment order). Not satisfied with this judgment and decree dated 16.9.83 of Additional Sr. Judge, Jalandhar, the Trust went in appeal which Was dismissed by Additional Distt. Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 4.3.1985. Still not satisfied, the Trust has come up in further appeal to this Court.;