Holding

A transferee does not acquire an independent right in a plot if the original allottee was ineligible, but because the transfer was approved before cancellation, the Trust must reconsider the transferee's claim and may allow a fresh allotment upon payment of any additional amount.

Summary

Baljit Singh purchased plot No.91-8 from Smt. Shammi Verma, who had been allotted the plot by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, and the transfer was approved by the Trust. The Trust later cancelled the original allotment on the ground that Smt. Verma was not a "locally displaced person" and that the officer who effected the change lacked authority. The High Court dismissed Baljit Singh's petition, holding that as a transferee he had no independent right in the plot and his claim depended on the rights of the original allottee. The Supreme Court affirmed that the defect in the original allotment passed to the transferee, so he did not acquire an independent right, but observed that the transfer had been approved before cancellation and therefore the Trust should reconsider his case, allowing him to pay any additional amount for a fresh allotment if the plot has not been re‑allotted. The Court modified the lower court orders and directed the Trust to give the appellant a hearing and decide within two months.

Issues considered

Whether a transferee of a plot allotted by an Improvement Trust can claim a right to continue with the allotment after the original allotment is cancelled, especially when the transfer was approved by the Trust.
Whether the transferee acquires an independent right in the plot irrespective of the eligibility of the original allottee.
Whether the authority of the officer who effected the change of allotment affects the validity of the transfer.

Subjects

urban developmentimprovement trustland allotmenttransferee rightseligibility criterialocally displaced personscancellation of allotmentfresh allotment

Judgment

·-
[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
consideration before the Court was: "Can a person who
B
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
approval of the Trust?"
c
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-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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 F
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.
G
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 H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.

A 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.91-8 and an agreement to
8 sell was also executed in her favour.
4. On 11th May, 1989, the appellant herein acquired the
said plot No.91-8 from Sm!. 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
c of the site plan submitted by him, he came to learn that the
allotment of plot No.91-8 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
D 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
E the interest of Smt. Verma devolved upon him as her approved
transferee, possession of plot No.91-8 ought to have been
made over to him.

5. However, since the appellant was unable to obtain any ..
F 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 8almik 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
G
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
H
BALJIT SINGH v. IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA & 5
ANR. [AL TAMAS KABIR, J.]

Smt. Shammi Verma as a Local Displaced Person, she was A
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 the Scheme. Even the subsequent
change in the allotment was effected by an officer who was
neither authorized nor entitled to do so. 8
6. The decision of the Chairman of the Trust was
t 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.91-8, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. On being
served with notice, the respondents herein filed their written c
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.91-8
subsequently offered to her in lieu of plot No.94-0. D

7. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding
that the appellant did not have any 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 E
petition, any claim made by the appellant either over plot No.94-
D or plot No.94-8 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
F
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
G
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 the plot in his favour which was independent of and
not dependent on the allotment made in favour of Smt. Shammi H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.

A Verma. It was urged that after the transfer was effected in his
name on 11th May, 1989, a fresh rig ht 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
B 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
C 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 respondents and on their
D 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
E 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
F 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 in the plot and he only
G 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 ailotment made in Smt. Shammi
Verma's favour, on account of her ineligibility to avail of the
H Scheme for rehabilitation of Locally Displaced Persons, was
BALJIT SINGH v. IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA & 7
ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)
inherited by the appellant as her transferee. The view taken by A
' the Chairman ofthe 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 B
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 passed by the Trust, during which period not only
had the allotment been altered from one plot to another plot, c
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 D
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 E
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 iri question has not been re-allotted, the same
shall not be re-allotted until a decision is arrived at in terms of F
the directions given in this order.

13. In the facts of the case, the parties will bear their own
costs.

• R.P . Appeal disposed of. G

"