MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust against the judgments dated 29.11.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar and 3.6.1988 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent Phaggu Ram filed a suit against the appellant for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the effect that the appellant be directed to allot a plot of 1 kanal in J.P.Nagar Scheme in lieu of the land which was acquired by the appellant pursuant to a scheme which was published on 3.9.1974 under the provisions of Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and rules framed thereunder. The plaintiff-respondent, inter-alia, pleaded that he was owner of land measuring 8 kanals 11 marlas which he had purchased vide sale deed dated 30.6.1968 registered on 1.7.1968. The said land was acquired for the purpose of Development Scheme of 74.3 and 33.0 Acres and, therefore, he was entitled to a plot on preferential basis as he came within the definition of "local displaced person". It was pleaded that similar plots had been allotted to various persons for residential purposes and since the plaintiff- respondent's case was similar, he pleaded parity with those allottees. The suit was resisted by the appellant. The factum of acquisition was admitted but the entitlement of the claim of the respondent was denied and the only ground on which the plot was not allotted to the respondent was that even though the notification had been published on 3.9.1974 and the award in pursuance to the acquisition was announced on 21.12.1978, the respondent slept over the matter and has filed the suit now in 1986 at a belated stage.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a plot of one kanal in J.P. Nagar in lieu of the acquired land of the plaintiff ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is estopped by his own acts and conducts ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 8. Relief. After appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the parties the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 29.11.1986 directed that a plot of dimension of one kanal be allotted to the respondent. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial court the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the findings of the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 3.6.1988.;