JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.2 vide which Resolution dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.3 recommending acceptance of reserve price amounting to Rs.30,68,906/- qua Plot No.446-A, Model Town Kapurthala, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the plot) from the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to accept the balance amount due from the petitioner and to transfer the plot in his name. The petitioner also seeks a restraint order against his dispossession from the plot.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the plot measuring 10 marlas which is owned by the Wakf Board. The petitioner has constructed his house on the plot. The Punjab Wakf Board originally owned 2 kanal 15 marlas of land out of which 16 marlas was taken-over by respondent No.3 by way of acquisition. The remaining land remained under the ownership of the Wakf Board which was under the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and, thereafter, in the possession of the petitioner.

3. Initially, a petition under Section 5 and 7 of the PUBLIC PREMISES ACT , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act') was filed by respondent No.3 against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely, Surinder Kaur and Harnek Singh for their eviction from the plot. This petition was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P-3). The same was affirmed in appeal vide order dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner then filed CWP No.19579 of 2013, titled as Ram Murti v. Deputy Commissioner and others, against these orders, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure-P5) and this judgment was affirmed in LPA No.964 of 2014 titled as Ram Murti v. Deputy Commissioner Kapurthala and others, vide judgment dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction against forcible injunction which was decreed on 21.03.2016 (Annexure P-7). The appeal against the said decision was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.01.2019 by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala (Annexure P-8). Regular Second Appeal against the said decision is stated to be pending.

4. In the meantime, initially resolution dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P-9) was passed in favour of the petitioner recommending the allotment of the plot to the petitioner at collector rate along with other charges. Subsequently, Resolution dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-10) was also passed recommending the acceptance of reserve price from the petitioner qua the plot. It is this resolution (Annexure P- 10) which has been now cancelled by way of the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-11) leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed without application of mind and therefore, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel has referred to the earlier resolution dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P-9) and the current resolution dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-10) and has submitted that the petitioner has constructed a house over the plot which is in existence for the last many years. It has been contended that keeping in view this very fact, respondent No.3 has, for the second time recommended that the plot be allotted to the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order did not take into consideration the judgment passed by the civil C