G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the allotment of a piece of land by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 at Ropar for construction of its building. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P -16 and for restraining the respondents for changing the user of the land meant for green belt in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. "Petitioner has alleged that he has constructed a house on Plot No. 192 in Scheme No. 1 in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, after the same was allotted to him by the Ropar Improvement Trust from the Government Employees Quota. The petitioner has constructed residential house over the said plot on the basis of the sanctioned site plan (Annexure P -5). Petitioner has claimed that on the Eastern side of his plot, there exists a green belt and this has been indicated in the site plan of Scheme No. 1 prepared by the Ropar Improvement Trust. This green belt, according to the petitioner, has been left out for the benefits of residents of the locality and is not subject to any change by the respondent -Trust. However, in total violation of the provisions contained in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, respondent No. 2 has allotted that piece of land to respondent No. 3 for commercial use. Petitioner says that though he had applied for supply of copy of the resolution by which the land was allotted to respondent No. 3, such resolution has not been made available to him.
(2.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In its reply, respondent No. 2 has pleaded that it has framed a scheme for the development of the area. This scheme is known as Giani Zail Singh Nagar and it was duly approved by the Government in the year 1976. At the time of demarcation, it was found that the dimensions given in the drawing prepared in 1976 did not tally with the actual site conditions. Due to this a modified drawing of layout of land was prepared containing change of land use and allotment of plot to Life Insurance Corporation for construction of office -cum -residential quarters. The Government approved and sanctioned the modified drawing of the land use. Respondent No. 2 has pleaded that land measuring 1316.67 sq. yards has been allotted to the Life Insurance Corporation and the open space which exists between the plot of the petitioner and the land allotted to the Life Insurance Corporation continues to be available as open space. It has also been pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner seems to have already transferred the plot by executing a power -of -attorney and, therefore, he does not have the locus standi to file this writ petition. Respondent No. 2 has contested the petitioner's statement that the open space available on the Eastern side of the petitioner's plot is green belt or is meant for a public park. The respondent has also denied the petitioner's allegation that layout plan of the area is being changed or that green belt/park is being utilised for residential -cum -commercial construction. Respondent No. 2 has also alleged that in a suit filed by the Giani Zail Singh Nagar Welfare Association, the District Judge, Ropar, refused to grant in - junction and Civil Revision No. 430 of 1993 filed by the Association before the High Court was dismissed. Similarly, in a suit filed by Dilawar Singh and others against the Ropar Improvement Trust, injunction application was dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, on 12.6.1993 and the appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Ropar, vide his order dated 15.6.1993. In its separate reply, the life Insurance Corporation has stated that in addition to the two suits of which reference has been made in the reply filed by respondent No. 2 owner of the Plot No. 193 had filed civil suit against the contractor of the Improvement Trust for restraining him from raising any construction. In that case also the trial Court had not granted any ad -interim injunction. Respondent No. 3 (Life Insurance Corporation) has stated that vide resolution No. 26 dated 17.3.1991, respondent No. 2 allotted land to respondent No. 3 by charging price at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per square yard and sale price of over Rs. 10,55,000/ - has been paid by the Life Insurance Corporation vide cheque dated 25.10.1991. Thereafter, the Trust issued allotment letter dated 19.11.1991 (Annexure R -3/5). An agreement to sell has also been signed between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 on 11.5.1992 (Annexure R -3/6). Thereafter, the Corporation submitted plan for raising construction of branch office and officers quarters. The same has been duly sanctioned by the Trust and then the construction work was started in November, 1994. Respondent No. 3 has also contested the claim of the petitioner that the area in dispute is a part of the green belt of is a park.
(3.) SEPARATE replications have been filed by the petitioner to the replies of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In these replications, the petitioner has reiterated his statement that respondent No. 2 has changed the user of the land without any notification having been issued by the State Government or sanction having been granted by the Government.;