Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Dismissal of Land Allotment Suit: Non-Payment and Failure to Challenge Joint Allotment Terms Prove Fatal - 2025-05-22

High Court Denies Relief in Decades-Old Land Allotment Case, Cites Non-Payment and Unchallenged Allotment Terms

Chandigarh : The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a recent judgment by Justice AnilKshetarpal , dismissed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 2076 of 2019) filed by Gurdev Kaur and another, upholding the concurrent decisions of two lower courts that had rejected their suit concerning the allotment of a plot by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. The court found no merit in the appeal, primarily due to the appellants' failure to deposit the required payment for the plot and their inaction in formally challenging the terms of the joint allotment letter.

Case Background: A Long-Standing Dispute

The dispute traces back to land acquired from Bal Singh , husband of appellant No. 1 ( Gurdev Kaur ) and father of the other appellants. Bal Singh , a locally displaced person, had applied for a plot under a scheme by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, depositing earnest money in 1973. After a prolonged wait and a successful writ petition (CWP No. 7783 of 1997 decided on February 2, 1999, directing the Trust to consider his claim), an allotment memo dated June 1, 1999, was issued.

The appellants (plaintiffs in the original suit) contended that Plot No. 1/A, measuring 500 sq. yards in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, was allotted. However, they raised objections, claiming the name " Pritam Singh " was wrongly included in the allotment alongside Bal Singh and that the mentioned price of Rs. 910/- per sq. yard was excessively high, not the reserved price. They sought mandatory injunction for possession of the plot and permanent injunction against its transfer.

Arguments in Court

Appellants' Stance: The appellants, heirs of Bal Singh , argued that he was solely entitled to the plot. They claimed to have made representations for correction of the allotment letter and reduction in price, followed by a legal notice, but possession was never delivered. They asserted that the lower courts erred in dismissing their suit.

Ludhiana Improvement Trust's Defense: The Ludhiana Improvement Trust (defendant No. 1) countered that the plot was allotted jointly to Bal Singh , Pritam Singh , Narinder Singh, Gurnam Singh , and Gurdev Kaur . They stated the total sale price was Rs. 17,55,000/-, of which a significant portion (Rs. 2,22,150/- or Rs. 2,22,530/- as per different mentions) was due by June 2, 1999, but no amount was ever deposited by the allottees.

Lower Courts' Rulings

The suit was initially dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Ludhiana, on February 8, 2017. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, on February 7, 2019, leading to the present Regular Second Appeal before the High Court.

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice AnilKshetarpal , after hearing counsel for the appellants, found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The High Court highlighted several critical points:

Non-Payment of Allotment Price: A crucial piece of evidence was the admission by Gurdev Kaur (appellant No. 1) during her cross-examination. The judgment noted: > " Gurdev Kaur , plaintiff No.1 while appearing in the witness box, stated in her cross-examination that she could not tell how much amount had been deposited by her husband and in-fact she admitted that no amount had been deposited. She was aware of the total sale consideration of the plot and the 25% amount which was to be deposited by 02.06.1999."

Failure to Challenge Allotment Terms Formally: The Court observed that despite the appellants' claim of making representations against the joint names and the price in the allotment letter, no such representations were produced on record. Furthermore, the First Appellate Court had correctly noted: > "no declaration had been sought by the plaintiffs that the allotment letter should have been issued only in the name of Bal Singh or in the name of the plaintiffs and that the name of Pritam Singh should have been deleted."

Joint Nature of Allotment: The High Court reiterated the finding that the allotment was made jointly to Bal Singh , Pritam Singh , Narinder Singh, Gurnam Singh , and Gurdev Kaur , pursuant to the directions in the earlier writ petition.

Scope of Regular Second Appeal: The Court emphasized that interference in a Regular Second Appeal is limited, especially when there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, unless a substantial question of law is involved or the findings are perverse. In this case, the Court found no such error.

The judgment stated: > "It is not in dispute that the land of Bal Singh was acquired for the development of Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar , Ludhiana. It is also not in dispute that he was a locally displaced person. It is further not in dispute that pursuant to directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 02.02.1999 in CWP No.7783 of 1997, the disputed plot was allotted in favour of Bal Singh , Pritam Singh , Narinder Singh, Gurnam Singh and Gurdev Kaur ."

Concluding the matter, Justice Kshetarpal remarked: > "I do not find any error in the said concurrent findings, warranting interference in the second appeal."

Final Outcome and Implications

The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, along with any pending applications. This decision effectively ends the appellants' current legal battle for the plot, underscoring the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations like payment and timely, appropriate legal challenges to disputed terms in official documents. The case serves as a reminder that mere entitlement as a displaced person does not override the specific conditions attached to an allotment.