Jullundur Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4768 of 1994
Petitioner: Jullundur Improvement Trust
Respondent: Mohan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4768 of 1994
Judges: V.N. Khare, Shivaraj V. Patil & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 14, 2002
Head Note:
SPECIFIC RELIEF
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Sections 38, 39 and 41 – Injunction – Grant of – Improvement trust floating scheme to give land in municipal limits of city – Trust resolving to provide land to its trustees on “no profit, no loss” basis – Application moved by one trustee ‘M’ – While pend-ing, government decided not to allot any land to trustee on reserved price – Yet, trust resolving and land allotted to ‘M’, subject to approval of state govt. – Show cause notice to trust – Later, scheme not approved – ‘M’ filing suit for injunction – Relief granted and affirmed by High Court – Justification. Held that the relief sought could not have been granted. orders set aside. (Paras 4 & 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
2. The Jullundur Improvement Trust was established and constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Improvement Trust”). One of the duties and functions assigned to the trust is to frame development schemes for benefit of public. The improvement trust framed scheme known as “development scheme” for providing land to public within the municipal limits of Jullundur city. On 4.1.1970, the Trust resolved that the employees and trustees of the Jullundur Improvement Trust shall be granted residential accommodation on “no profit no loss” basis under the aforesaid scheme. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-respondent herein was one of the trustees of the improvement trust. On 22.1.1971, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application for allotment of residential plot. While the said application was pending, the government by order dated 27.1.1971, directed that no trustee shall be allotted any plot of land in the development scheme formulated by the Improvement Trust at a reserved price. Despite that order of the state government, the trust by resolution dated 24.2.1971, resolved to allot a residential plot to the plaintiff-respondent subject to the approval of the state government. On 31.8.1971, a provisional letter of allotment of land was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. In pursuance thereof, it is alleged that the respondent deposited the price of the land. When the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the government, the government by letter dated 5.9.1972 called upon the improvement trust to show cause under what circumstances, the provisional allotment has been made in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It is not disputed that the said scheme was subsequently not approved by the state government and it fell through. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from committing the breach of the alleged agreement and from cancelling the provisional allotment made in his favour or also from changing the nature of the scheme. The suit was contested by the Jullundur Improvement Trust. It was contended on behalf of improvement trust that no such injunction, as prayed for, could be granted by the court. Despite the said objection, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved the improvement trust filed an appeal before the first appellate court and the same was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the improvement trust met with the same fate. It is against the said judgment, the trust is in appeal before us.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that no injunction, as prayed for, could have been granted by the trial court and the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. We find merit in the submission.
4. It is not disputed that the scheme is no longer a subsisting scheme. It is also not disputed that the original scheme has already been cancelled by the state government and in lieu thereof, a new modified scheme has come into existence. It is noteworthy to notice that despite order of the state government that no trustee shall be allotted plot of land at reserved price a resolution was passed by the trust in which the plaintiff-respondent participated and got a resolution for allotment of land passed contrary to the direction of the state government.
5. We have perused the record and do not find that any concluding contract has come into existence between the appellant and the respondent. We further find that the plaintiff-respondent has already got a plot of land within the municipal limits of Jullundur and, therefore, under the scheme, he could not have been allotted a plot of land. Otherwise also we find that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the relief sought in the suit could not have been granted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge deserves to be set aside.
6. Consequently, the judgment under challenge is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The suit filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
1. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
2. The Jullundur Improvement Trust was established and constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Improvement Trust”). One of the duties and functions assigned to the trust is to frame development schemes for benefit of public. The improvement trust framed scheme known as “development scheme” for providing land to public within the municipal limits of Jullundur city. On 4.1.1970, the Trust resolved that the employees and trustees of the Jullundur Improvement Trust shall be granted residential accommodation on “no profit no loss” basis under the aforesaid scheme. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-respondent herein was one of the trustees of the improvement trust. On 22.1.1971, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application for allotment of residential plot. While the said application was pending, the government by order dated 27.1.1971, directed that no trustee shall be allotted any plot of land in the development scheme formulated by the Improvement Trust at a reserved price. Despite that order of the state government, the trust by resolution dated 24.2.1971, resolved to allot a residential plot to the plaintiff-respondent subject to the approval of the state government. On 31.8.1971, a provisional letter of allotment of land was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. In pursuance thereof, it is alleged that the respondent deposited the price of the land. When the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the government, the government by letter dated 5.9.1972 called upon the improvement trust to show cause under what circumstances, the provisional allotment has been made in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It is not disputed that the said scheme was subsequently not approved by the state government and it fell through. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from committing the breach of the alleged agreement and from cancelling the provisional allotment made in his favour or also from changing the nature of the scheme. The suit was contested by the Jullundur Improvement Trust. It was contended on behalf of improvement trust that no such injunction, as prayed for, could be granted by the court. Despite the said objection, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved the improvement trust filed an appeal before the first appellate court and the same was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the improvement trust met with the same fate. It is against the said judgment, the trust is in appeal before us.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that no injunction, as prayed for, could have been granted by the trial court and the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. We find merit in the submission.
4. It is not disputed that the scheme is no longer a subsisting scheme. It is also not disputed that the original scheme has already been cancelled by the state government and in lieu thereof, a new modified scheme has come into existence. It is noteworthy to notice that despite order of the state government that no trustee shall be allotted plot of land at reserved price a resolution was passed by the trust in which the plaintiff-respondent participated and got a resolution for allotment of land passed contrary to the direction of the state government.
5. We have perused the record and do not find that any concluding contract has come into existence between the appellant and the respondent. We further find that the plaintiff-respondent has already got a plot of land within the municipal limits of Jullundur and, therefore, under the scheme, he could not have been allotted a plot of land. Otherwise also we find that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the relief sought in the suit could not have been granted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge deserves to be set aside.
6. Consequently, the judgment under challenge is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The suit filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
