Judgment :-

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Can a person who is a transferee of a plot of land allotted to the transferor by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, claim a right to continue with such allotment even after the same is cancelled, particularly when such transfer was effected with the approval of the Trust, is the question for consideration in the instant appeal.

3. There is no dispute that on 28th October, 1982, one Smt. Shammi Verma was allotted plot No.94-D in the Development Scheme of 256 Acres at Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana, under Memo No.9913 dated 26th October, 1982 issued by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. Although, Smt. Verma deposited the amounts which were required to be paid against such allotment, she was informed by the respondent No.1 by its letter dated 2nd January, 1989, that the Trust was unable to make over possession of the plot to her. Subsequently, Smt. Verma was allotted another plot, being No.91-B and an agreement to sell was also executed in her favour.

4. On 11th May, 1989, the appellant herein acquired the said plot No.91-B from Smt. Verma and such transfer was also permitted by the Trust. Surprisingly, however, three months later on 14th August, 1989, when the appellant applied for approval of the site plan submitted by him, he came to learn that the allotment of plot No.91-B in favour of Smt. Shammi Verma had been cancelled on the ground that such allotment had been made by one Shri S.S. Mann, who was not competent to make such allotment. The appellant allegedly made various representations to the respondent Trust and also to the Government and on consideration thereof the Trust was directed by the Government to restore the plot in question to the appellant and consequently the allotment in favour of Smt. Verma stood restored. It is the case of the appellant that since the interest of Smt. Verma devolved upon him as her approved transferee, possession of plot No.91-B ought to have been made over to him.

5. However, since the appellant was unable to obtain any relief from the respondents, he filed Civil Writ Petition No.17103 of 2003 before the High Court seeking directions upon the respondents to allot any alternative plot to the appellant in lieu of plot No.94-D in Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana. While disposing of the writ petition on 31st October, 2003, the High Court directed the respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order on the appellants representation within four months from the date of the order upon production of a certified copy thereof. Pursuant to the said directions, the Chairman of the Trust heard the appellant on 11th February, 2004, but rejected his claim on the ground that although the plot in question had been allotted to Smt. Shammi Verma as a Local Displaced Person, she was not the owner of any portion of the land acquired by the Trust and was not a Displaced Person, which was the eligibility criteria for coming under the Scheme. Even the subsequent change in the allotment was effected by an officer who was neither authorized nor entitled to do so.

6. The decision of the Chairman of the Trust was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.11844 of 2004, wherein various reliefs were prayed for and in particular for restoration of plot No.91-B, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. On being served with notice, the respondents herein filed their written statement on 23rd December, 2005, claiming that since the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was ineligible for allotment of the plot in her name, the appellant could not get a better right than she enjoyed in respect of plot No.91-B subsequently offered to her in lieu of plot No.94-D.

7. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant did not have any independent right in the plot and as a transferee his fortunes depended on the fortunes of the transferor. The High Court having dismissed the civil writ petition, any claim made by the appellant either over plot No.94-D or plot No.94-B also stood rejecte