IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.    9     of 2009 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)

NO.6979 of 2006)

Baljit Singh        ...Appellant  

Vs.

Improvement Trust Ludhiana & Anr.        …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. 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

continue  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 consideration in the

instant appeal.  

3. There is no dispute that on 28th October, 1982,

one Smt. 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.  Although,  Smt.

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.   Subsequently,  Smt.  Verma  was  allotted

another plot, being No.91-B and an agreement to

sell was also executed in her favour.   

2

4. On  11th May,  1989,  the  appellant  herein

acquired the said plot No.91-B from Smt. Verma

and such transfer was also permitted by the

Trust.   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. Shammi Verma had

been  cancelled  on  the  ground  that  such

allotment had been made by one Shri S.S. Mann,

who was not competent to make such allotment.

The  appellant  allegedly  made  various

representations  to  the  respondent  Trust  and

also  to  the  Government  and  on  consideration

thereof  the  Trust  was  directed  by  the

Government to restore the plot in question to

the appellant and consequently the allotment in

favour of Smt. Verma stood restored. It is the

case of the appellant that since the interest

of Smt. Verma devolved upon him as her approved

transferee, possession of plot No.91-B ought to

have been made over to him.   

3

5. 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.   While disposing of

the writ petition on 31st October, 2003, the

High Court directed the respondents to pass an

appropriate speaking order on the appellant’s

representation within four months from the date

of the order upon production of a certified

copy thereof.  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. Shammi Verma

as a Local Displaced Person, she was not the

owner of any portion of the land acquired by

the Trust and was not a Displaced Person, which

was the eligibility criteria for coming under

4

the Scheme.   Even the subsequent change in the

allotment was effected by an officer who was

neither authorized nor entitled to do so.   

6. 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

being  served  with  notice,  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  could  not  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.  

7. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by

holding that the appellant did not have any

5

independent  right  in  the  plot  and  as  a

transferee  his  fortunes  depended  on  the

fortunes of the transferor.  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.

However, according to the appellant, since a

mistake had been committed 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. However, as

indicated hereinbefore, the said argument did

not  find  favour  with  the  High  Court,  which

dismissed the writ petition, which has given

rise to the present appeal.   

8. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that

the transfer effected in his favour with the

approval of the Trust created an interest in

6

the plot in his favour which was independent of

and  not  dependent  on  the  allotment  made  in

favour of Smt. Shammi Verma.  It was urged that

after the transfer was effected in his name on

11th May, 1989, a fresh right accrued in the

appellant’s  favour  and  Smt.  Verma  ceased  to

have any interest in the plot thereafter and,

in any event, she had no subsisting right in

the  plot  on  14th August,  1989,  when  the

allotment was cancelled.  

9. It was also urged that the amounts deposited

for  allotment  of  the  plot  had  yet  to  be

refunded and if the respondents were determined

to  re-allot  the  plot  on  fresh  terms,  the

appellant  was  willing  to  pay  any  additional

amount that might be imposed to retain the plot

or even for a fresh allotment in his name, in

the special facts of the case.  

10. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant

were  vehemently  opposed  on  behalf  of  the

7

respondents  and  on  their  behalf  it  was

maintained  that  since  the  predecessor-in-

interest of the appellant, Smt. Shammi Verma,

was  not  eligible  for  allotment  of  any  plot

under  the  Scheme,  the  allotment  had  been

rightly terminated and the appellant could not

derive  any  right  thereto  on  account  of  the

transfer made in his favour.   According to the

respondents, the appellant would have to sink

or swim with the fortunes of his transferor as

no independent right had been acquired by him

by virtue of such transfer.  

11. Having  considered  the  submissions  made  on

behalf  of  the  respective  parties  and  the

materials on record, we are unable to accept

the  case  as  made  out  on  behalf  of  the

appellant.  We agree with the Chairman of the

Trust that notwithstanding the fact that the

transfer of the plot in favour of the appellant

had  been  duly  approved  by  the  Trust,  the

appellant did not acquire any independent right

8

in  the  plot  and  he  only  acquired  whatever

rights the transferor or the original allottee

had  therein.    The  position  may  have  been

different  if  after  the  transfer  a  fresh

allotment  had  been  made  in  favour  of  the

appellant.  The defect in the allotment made in

Smt. Shammi Verma’s favour, on account of her

ineligibility  to  avail  of  the  Scheme  for

rehabilitation  of  Locally  Displaced  Persons,

was  inherited  by  the  appellant  as  her

transferee.   The view taken by the Chairman of

the  Trust  in  his  order  dated  11th February,

2004 and affirmed by the High Court, cannot be

faulted.    However,  since  the  transfer  was

effected  in  the  appellant’s  favour  with  the

approval of the Trust before the allotment was

cancelled, the appellant’s case could have been

treated  differently  in  the  special  facts

thereof.   While the allotment of the plot was

made in Smt. Verma’s favour on 28th October,

1982, it was after almost seven years that the

order  of  cancellation  of  such  allotment  was

9

passed by the Trust, during which period not

only had the allotment been altered from one

plot to another plot, but even the transfer in

favour of the appellant had taken place.   

12. We,  accordingly,  dispose  of  the  appeal  by

modifying the judgment and order of the High Court

dated  30th January,  2006,  and  the  order  of  the

Chairman,  Improvement  Trust,  Ludhiana  dated  11th

February, 2004, and directing the said Chairman to

reconsider the case of the appellant in the light

of the submissions made on his behalf that he was

willing to pay such additional amount as may be

levied  for  a  fresh  allotment  of  the  plot  in

question in his favour, after giving the appellant

a  reasonable  opportunity  of  being  heard,  in  the

event the said plot has not been re-allotted in the

meantime.  Such consideration must be completed by

the Chairman of the Trust within two months from

the date of communication of this order and in the

event  the  plot  in  question  has  not  been  re-

allotted, the same shall not be re-allotted until a

10

decision is arrived at in terms of the directions

given in this order.

13. In the facts of the case, the parties will bear

their own costs.

_______________J. (Altamas Kabir)

_______________J. (Markandey Katju)

New Delhi Dated: 6.1.2009  

11