Although, Smt.
However, according to the appellant, since a mistake had been companymitted by the respondents themselves at the initial stage and various transactions had already taken place in respect of the plot in question, the cancellation of the allotment which stood transferred to the appellant with the permission of the Trust and its authorities, was unacceptable.
Shammi Verma had been cancelled on the ground that such allotment had been made by one Shri S.S. Mann, who was number companypetent to make such allotment.
Shammi Verma as a Local Displaced Person, she was number the owner of any portion of the land acquired by the Trust and was number a Displaced Person, which was the eligibility criteria for companying under the Scheme.
It is the case of the appellant that since the interest of Smt.
There is numberdispute that on 28th October, 1982, one Smt.
The High Court having dismissed the civil writ petition, any claim made by the appellant either over plot No.94 D or plot No.94 B also stood rejected.
Subsequently, Smt.
Pursuant to the said directions, the Chairman of the Trust heard the appellant on 11th February, 2004, but rejected his claim on the ground that although the plot in question had been allotted to Smt.
The decision of the Chairman of the Trust was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.11844 of 2004, wherein various reliefs were prayed for and in particular for restoration of plot No.91 B, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.
On 11th May, 1989, the appellant herein acquired the said plot No.91 B from Smt.
While disposing of the writ petition on 31st October, 2003, the High Court directed the respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order on the appellants representation within four months from the date of the order upon production of a certified companyy thereof.
The appellant allegedly made various representations to the respondent Trust and also to the Government and on companysideration thereof the Trust was directed by the Government to restore the plot in question to the appellant and companysequently the allotment in favour of Smt.
Even the subsequent change in the allotment was effected by an officer who was neither authorized number entitled to do so.
Verma and such transfer was also permitted by the Trust.
Shammi Verma was allotted plot No.94 D in the Development Scheme of 256 Acres at Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana, under Memo No.9913 dated 26th October, 1982 issued by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.
On being served with numberice, the respondents herein filed their written statement on 23rd December, 2005, claiming that since the predecessor in interest of the appellant was ineligible for allotment of the plot in her name, the appellant companyld number get a better right than she enjoyed in respect of plot No.91 B subsequently offered to her in lieu of plot No.94 D. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant did number have any independent right in the plot and as a transferee his fortunes depended on the fortunes of the transferor.
However, as indicated hereinbefore, the said argument did number find favour with the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, which has given rise to the present appeal.
Verma deposited the amounts which were required to be paid against such allotment, she was informed by the respondent No.1 by its letter dated 2nd January, 1989, that the Trust was unable to make over possession of the plot to her.
Verma was allotted another plot, being No.91 B and an agreement to sell was also executed in her favour.
Verma devolved upon him as her approved transferee, possession of plot No.91 B ought to have been made over to him.
Surprisingly, however, three months later on 14th August, 1989, when the appellant applied for approval of the site plan submitted by him, he came to learn that the allotment of plot No.91 B in favour of Smt.
However, since the appellant was unable to obtain any relief from the respondents, he filed Civil Writ Petition No.17103 of 2003 before the High Court seeking directions upon the respondents to allot any alternative plot to the appellant in lieu of plot No.94 D in Balmik Nagar, Ludhiana.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
Can a person who is a transferee of a plot of land allotted to the transferor by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, claim a right to companytinue with such allotment even after the same is cancelled, particularly when such transfer was effected with the approval of the Trust, is the question for companysideration in the instant appeal.
Verma stood restored.
