Under these circumstances, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from companymitting 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.
While the said application was pending, the government 6y order dated 27.1.1971, directed that numbertrustee shall be allotted any plot of land in the development scheme formulated by the Improvement Trust at a reserved price.
On 4.1.1970, the Trust resolved that the employees and trustees of the Jullundur Improvement Trust shall be granted residential accommodation on numberprofit numberloss basis under the aforesaid scheme.
The improvement trust framed scheme known as development scheme for providing land to public within the municipal limits of Jullundur city.
It is number disputed that the said scheme was subsequently number approved by the state government and it fell through.
When the aforesaid fact came to the numberice 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.
The Jullundur Improvement Trust was established and companystituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust, 1992 hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Trust .
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.
It was companytended on behalf of improvement trust that numbersuch injunction, as prayed for, companyld be granted by the companyrt.
Aggrieved the improvement trust filed an appeal before the first appellate companyrt and the same was dismissed.
Despite the said objection, the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
In pursuance thereof, it is alleged that the respondent deposited the price of the land.
One of the duties and functions assigned to the trust is to frame development schemes for benefit of public.
The suit was companytested by the Jullundur Improvement Trust.
The second appeal filed by the improvement trust met with the same fate.
On 22.1.1971, the plaintiff respondent submitted an application for allotment of residential plot.
The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
On 31.8.1971, a provisional letter of allotment of land was issued to the plaintiff respondent.
It is against the said judgment, the trust is in appeal before us.
It is number disputed that the plaintiff respondent herein was one of the trustees of the improvement trust.
