The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of government approval for provisional plot allotments and the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions and regulations in such allotments.

M.L.SINGHAL, J.

1. One Baldev Raj Verma, resident of 139, Model Town, Jalandhar City filed suit for permanent injunction against Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar represented by Punjab State through Shri D.S. Chaudhary, IAS to perform the functions of the Trust and the Chairman restraining it from selling or interfering with his peaceful and lawful possession of plot No. 8 measuring 3 kanal shown as red in the plan attached to the plaint situated in the Development Scheme of 84.87 acres behind Civil Hospital, Jalandhar on the allegations that this plot was allotted to him by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in Development Scheme of 84.87 acres @ Rs. 700.00 per marla vide memo No. JIT /3050 dated 7-10-1970. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar vide resolution No. 44 dated 4-9-70 had resolved to allot plots to its trustees of their choice. There were six trustees in all of which he was one. Trustees were asked by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar vide memo No. JIT/2618-23 dated 11-9-1970 whether they were interested in getting the allotments of plots or not. He gave his consent to the allotment of one of the plots in the said scheme vide application dated 14-9-1970. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar accepted his offer and the plot was allotted to him @ Rs. 701.00 per marla. Resolution No. 9 dated 23-9-1970 was duly passed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and he was required to make payment of 1/4th of the sale price which worked out to Rs. 10,515.00. He accepted this allotment and paid the aforesaid price of Rs. 10515.00 vide receipt No. 35, Book No. 173 dated 13-10-1970. Letter dated 12-10-1970 was also sent by him to Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. Thereafter, he was put in possession. He submitted plan for construction of the building on the said site in accordance with the building bye-laws and the rules. No order was passed on his application for a period of 60 days. In view of Sec. 49 of the Pubjab Town Improvements Act, 1922 read with Sec. 193 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the presumption arose that sanction had been given. A valid and binding contract thus came into existence between him and the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and he became absolute owner of the plot. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar cannot interfere with his peaceful and lawful possession. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, however, in gross violation of the contractual obligations as well as statutory provisions, on 8-2-1976 advertised to sell the plot in dispute by amalgamating the same with some contiguous plots intending to put to auction on 11-2-1976. Scheme and lay out plan having been sanctioned by the Punjab Govt. under Sec. 41 and notified under Sec. 42 of the Punjab Town Improvements Act, 1922, no modification or alteration could be made by the defendant thereafter. The act of amalgamating the plot with other plots was obviously without any legal sanction or authority, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar allotted one plot to Shri Gurdas Mal who was also one of the trustees and in whose favour transaction was finalised with the execution of the sale deed. Non execution of the sale deed in his favour was obviously arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide.

2. Defendant Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that the allotment of the disputed plot was only provisional to the plaintiff . Provisional allotment never fructified into permanent allotment, as such, he acquired no right, title or interest to the plot. It was denied that he was ever delivered possession of the plot. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar had every right to put the plot to sale. No valid and binding contract regarding the sale of the disputed plot to the plaintiff came into being between the parties.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plot No. 8 was allotted to the plaintiff in Development Scheme of 84