- (1.) On February 26, 1976, a plot measuring 9000 square yards in Ludhiana was allotted to the petitioner at a reserve price of Rs. 81,000/- for running a school. The petitioner failed to erect an appropriate building. Instead, unauthorised construction in the shape of four rooms which did not give even a semblance of a school was raised. Part of the building was let out to the Food & Supplies Department. Unauthorised temporary tenements also exist. Consequently, on May 23, 2000, the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the site be not resumed. Alleging that the petitioner had failed to show cause, order for resumption was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal. On July 18, 2000, the order was set aside by the Government. The case was remanded for a fresh decision. The petitioner appeared before the Chairman of the Trust on July 24, 2000. The case was adjourned twice. Ultimately, an order for resumption was passed on September 18, 2000. The petitioner challenged the order before the State Government under Section 72(E) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Ultimately, vide order dated December 18, 2000, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner prays that the orders dated September 18, 2000 and December 18, 2000, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.10 and P.19 respectively be quashed.
(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. A detailed written statement has been filed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Executive Officer. The allegations made by the petitioner have been controverted. Various documents including the written statement filed on behalf of the Trust in the suit which had been filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ludhiana have also been produced. The petitioner has filed a replication.
(3.) The case was posted before the Bench for hearing on July 17, 2001. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-Trust had produced 18 photographs printed on 9 sheets. These indicated the actual situation at the spot. These were taken on record as Mark A-1 to A-9. The Bench had given opportunity to the petitioner to furnish information regarding the covered area of the school, the furniture available, the number of teachers alongwith the details regarding their qualifications and salary. Counsel for the petitioner had also undertaken to produce the photographs of the building and the vacant area. The case was adjourned to July 25, 2001. On that day, counsel for the petitioner filed an additional reply. He also produced five photographs which were taken on record as Mark A-10 to A-14.;