JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)

Regular Second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 08.10.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur in Civil Appeal No.22/98 in case titled as Subash Chander v. Improvement Trust , Pathankot and another upholding the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1987 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot vide which the civil suit filed by the Appellant/plaintiff for a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the Respondents/ defendants from forcibly dispossessing/dismantling/demolishing the shop marked as ABCD and shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint situated in village Saili, Pathankot, unless he was provided with alternative shop accommodation.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as requested for ? OPP.

3. Relief.

Thereafter,on the basis of the evidence led, qua issue No.1, it was held that although the Appellant/plaintiff had ceased to be owner of the disputed land/property after its acquisition by the Respondents/defendants, yet the Appellant/plaintiff continued to be in possession over the disputed structure and accordingly, issue No.1 was decided in his favor, qua possession but against him, regarding ownership.

3. As regards issue No.2, learned trial Court held that the compensation in respect of the acquired site having been deposited and the Appellant/plaintiff not having filed appeal against the verdict of the Court regarding the assessment of the compensation after depositing of the compensation assessed by the competent Court for the acquisition of the disputed structure as well as the site covered by the same, the Respondents/defendants-Trust had the right to acquire its possession and the Appellant/plaintiff had no right to remain or continue in possession over the same and that the Respondents/defendants in the circumstances could not be restrained from taking possession thereof. Accordingly, issue No.2 was decided against the Appellant/plaintiff.

4. As regards the claim for alternative accommodation before dispossessing the Appellant/plaintiff from the disputed structure, learned trial Court referred to Section 27 of the PUNJAB TOWN IMPROVEMENT ACT , 1922 (for short - " the Act") which is reproduced as under:-

"Any resident house-owner who is likely to be displaced by the execution of any scheme under this Act, may apply to the trust to be re-housed and no such scheme shall be put into execution until a re-housing scheme as provided for in Section 26 for the re-housing of such resident house-owners as may apply under this Section has been completed."

and held that claim would be attracted in terms of Section 27 of the Act ibid only in case the same pertained to a residential house whereas the dispute in the instant case was regarding the structure raised for running a brick kiln and presently, allegedly being used for running a Karyana shop by the Appellant/plaintiff, accordingly, the disputed structure / or business in the premises in respect thereto was not covered under the law contained in Section 27 of the Act, therefore, it was not mandatory for the Respondents/defendants to provide the Appellant/plaintiff with alternative accommodation before taking possession of the disputed property, therefore, the Appellant/plaintiff could not be held entitled to relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Respondents/defendants. Accordingly, case on the issue was decided against him and in view of the same, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and de