BALJIT SINGH versus IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

·-
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1 
BALJIT SINGH 
A 
V. 
IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009) 
JANUARY 6, 2009 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
t 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT: 
_.... 
Allotment of plot - Under 'focally displaced person' c 
Scheme - Change to plot in question effected in lieu of 
original allotment - Allottee transferring the plot with 
permission of Trust - Transferee denied possession on the 
ground that original allottee did not fulfil the condition of 'locally 
displaced person' and subsequent change was effected by an D 
~-
_ officer not competent to do so - HELD: Trust was right in 
holding that transferee did not acquire any right independent 
of the transferor - However, since transfer was effected with 
approval of the Trust before the allotment was cancelled, Trust 
directed to consider the case of transferee in view of his E 
willingness to pay such additional amount as may be levied 
for a fresh allotment, provided the plot in question has not 
been reallotted in the meantime. 
~ 
The appellant, with the permission of the respondent-
Improvement Trust, acquired on 11.5.1989 a plot from the F 
original allottee, who had earlier been allotted a different 
plot and later a change to the plot in question was 
effected in her favour in lieu of the original allotment. 
However, the appellant was denied possession on the 
ground that the original allottee was not a 'Locally G 
Displaced Person' which was the eligibility criteria for 
allotment of plots under the Scheme, and the subsequent 
change in allotment was effected by an office who was 
neither authorized nor entitled to do so. The writ petition 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court holding 
1 
that he being a transferee, did not have any right in the 
plot independent of his transferor. 
In the appeal filed by the transferee the question for 
B consideration before the Court was: "Can a person who 
is a transferee of a plot of land allotted to the transferor 
by the Improvement Trust, claim a right to continue with 
such allotment even after the same is cancelled, 
• 
particularly, when such transfer was effected with the 
c approval of the Trust?" 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Chairman of the respondent-Trust 
rightly passed the order dated 11.2.2004, that 
D notwithstanding the fact that the transfer of the plot in 
favour of the appellant had been duly approved by the 
Jo. 
Trust, the appellant did not acquire any independent right 
in the plot and he only acquired whatever rights the . 
transferor or the original allottee had therein. The defect 
E in the allotment made in favour of the original allottee, on 
account of her ineligibility to avail of the Scheme for 
rehabilitation of locally displaced persons, was inherited 
by the appellant as her transferee. [Para 11) [6-F-H] 
1.2. However, since the transfer had been effected in 
" 
F appellant's favour with approval of the Trust before the 
allotment was cancelled, his case could have been treated 
differently in the special facts thereof. While the allotment 
of plot had been made in favour of the original allottee 
on 28th October, 1982, it was after almost seven years 
G that the order of cancellation of such allotment was 
passed by the Trust, during which period not only had 
the allotment been altered from one plot to another plot, 
I" 
but even the transfer in favol!.r of the appellant had also 
taken place. [Para 11] [7-A-C] 
H 
.. 
BALJIT SINGH v. IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA & 
3 
ANR. 
1.3. The judgment and order of the High Court dated A 
30th January, 2006, and the order of the Chairman, 
Improvement Trust, dated 11th February, 2004, are 
modified and the Chairman of the Trust is directed to 
reconsider the case of the appellant in view of his 
willingness to pay such additional amount as may be B 
levied for a fresh allotment of the plot in question in his 
favour, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being 
heard, in the event the said plot has not been re-allotted 
in ~he meantime. [Para 12) [7-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9 of c 
2009. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.1.2006 of the · 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 11844 of 2004. 
D 
R.K. Kapoor and Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appellant. 
Subramanium Prasad, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and 
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. 
E-
Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.