LPA-483-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA The Ludhiana Improvement Trust Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and CORAM: HON'BLE MR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. for **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause Patent Act, is 25.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge 2024, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant against award dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service 2. Brief facts of the case are that financed scheme known as Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme, Ludhiana (550 acre development scheme), in the year 1999. Applications were invited from the general public for allotment of various categories of flats including Super Delux Flat(s). One Smt. Balbir Kaur, widow of late Sh. Surjeet Singh had applied for a flat and was successful in the draw of lots held on 10.09.1999 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-483 Date of Decision The Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mrs. Kavita Arora, Advocate, for the Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2/Caveator. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause is preferred by the appellant-Trust passed by learned Single Judge of this Court , whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant against award dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services Brief facts of the case are that financed scheme known as Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme, Ludhiana (550 acre development scheme), in the year 1999. Applications were invited from the general public for allotment of various categories of flats including Super elux Flat(s). One Smt. Balbir Kaur, widow of late Sh. Surjeet Singh had applied for a flat and was successful in the draw of lots held on 10.09.1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 483-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 19, 2025 ......Appellant Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and anr. …..Respondents LISA GILL SUDEEPTI SHARMA r the appellant. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Trust challenging judgment dated of this Court in CWP No. 31146- , whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant against award dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 1- s), Ludhiana. Brief facts of the case are that appellant-Trust floated a self- financed scheme known as Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme, Ludhiana (550 acre development scheme), in the year 1999. Applications were invited from the general public for allotment of various categories of flats including Super elux Flat(s). One Smt. Balbir Kaur, widow of late Sh. Surjeet Singh had applied for a flat and was successful in the draw of lots held on 10.09.1999 of the Letters udgment dated - , whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by - - financed scheme known as Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme, Ludhiana (550 acre development scheme), in the year 1999. Applications were invited from the general public for allotment of various categories of flats including Super elux Flat(s). One Smt. Balbir Kaur, widow of late Sh. Surjeet Singh had applied for a flat and was successful in the draw of lots held on 10.09.1999 Gaurav Arora 2025.06.02 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-483-2025 whereupon, a Super Delux Flat No.44, 4th floor, in the said Scheme, was allotted to her, Rs.12,50,000/- was required to make payment therein from the year 1999 till the year 2002. The allotte however, submitted a request to the from 4th floor to the ground floor in view of her old age and her health. Keeping in view her request, the same was allowed by the Improvement Trust, on humanit Approval was also granted by the Government for exchange of said flat on 11.12.2000 and a fresh letter of allotment dated 12.12.2000 was issued and Flat No.3 on Ground Floor under the Scheme was allotted to Smt. Balbir Kaur in exchange of Flat No.44, subject to an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/ towards differential cost of flat. Thereafter, an agreement to sell was executed with the appellant however, died on 02.02.2003 and her daughter Smt. Baljinder Kaur sought transfer of the above flat in her name on the basis of a registered Will executed in her favour by her mother. However, there were two more le heirs, namely Sh. Rajdeep Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh sons of Smt. Balbir Kaur. Hence, the and asked Smt. Baljinder Kaur to provide affidavit/certificate to the fact that she was the sole leg 27.04.2006 was thereafter submitted by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in response to the same seeking transfer of the flat in her name. However, before actual transfer of the flat in her name, Smt. Baljinder Kaur di Sh. Kanwar Jagdeep Singh submitted a request f 5 a Super Delux Flat No.44, 4th floor, in the said Scheme, was , vide allotment letter dated 08.10.1999 with a tentative cost of -. As per the letter of allotment dated 08.10.1999, an allottee was required to make payment in installments as per the schedule mentioned therein from the year 1999 till the year 2002. The allotte however, submitted a request to the appellant from 4th floor to the ground floor in view of her old age and her health. Keeping in view her request, the same was allowed by the Improvement Trust, on humanitarian ground, vide resolution No. 27 dated 22.05.2000. pproval was also granted by the Government for exchange of said flat on 11.12.2000 and a fresh letter of allotment dated 12.12.2000 was issued and Ground Floor under the Scheme was allotted to Smt. Balbir Kaur in exchange of Flat No.44, subject to an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/ towards differential cost of flat. Thereafter, an agreement to sell was executed appellant- Trust on 18.03.2002. The allottee i.e. Smt. Balbir Kaur, however, died on 02.02.2003 and her daughter Smt. Baljinder Kaur sought transfer of the above flat in her name on the basis of a registered Will executed in her favour by her mother. However, there were two more le heirs, namely Sh. Rajdeep Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh sons of Smt. Balbir Kaur. Hence, the appellant- Trust sought verification of the complete record and asked Smt. Baljinder Kaur to provide affidavit/certificate to the fact that she was the sole legal heir of Smt. Balbir Kaur. A request letter dated 27.04.2006 was thereafter submitted by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in response to the same seeking transfer of the flat in her name. However, before actual transfer of the flat in her name, Smt. Baljinder Kaur di Sh. Kanwar Jagdeep Singh submitted a request f 2 a Super Delux Flat No.44, 4th floor, in the said Scheme, was ter dated 08.10.1999 with a tentative cost of s per the letter of allotment dated 08.10.1999, an allottee installments as per the schedule mentioned therein from the year 1999 till the year 2002. The allottee Smt. Balbir Kaur, appellant- Trust for change of her flat from 4th floor to the ground floor in view of her old age and her health. Keeping in view her request, the same was allowed by the Improvement arian ground, vide resolution No. 27 dated 22.05.2000. pproval was also granted by the Government for exchange of said flat on 11.12.2000 and a fresh letter of allotment dated 12.12.2000 was issued and Ground Floor under the Scheme was allotted to Smt. Balbir Kaur in exchange of Flat No.44, subject to an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards differential cost of flat. Thereafter, an agreement to sell was executed 2002. The allottee i.e. Smt. Balbir Kaur, however, died on 02.02.2003 and her daughter Smt. Baljinder Kaur sought transfer of the above flat in her name on the basis of a registered Will executed in her favour by her mother. However, there were two more legal heirs, namely Sh. Rajdeep Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh sons of Smt. Balbir Trust sought verification of the complete record and asked Smt. Baljinder Kaur to provide affidavit/certificate to the fact that al heir of Smt. Balbir Kaur. A request letter dated 27.04.2006 was thereafter submitted by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in response to the same seeking transfer of the flat in her name. However, before actual transfer of the flat in her name, Smt. Baljinder Kaur died on 01.07.2006. Her husband Sh. Kanwar Jagdeep Singh submitted a request for transfer of the flat in his a Super Delux Flat No.44, 4th floor, in the said Scheme, was ter dated 08.10.1999 with a tentative cost of s per the letter of allotment dated 08.10.1999, an allottee installments as per the schedule mentioned e Smt. Balbir Kaur, Trust for change of her flat from 4th floor to the ground floor in view of her old age and her health. Keeping in view her request, the same was allowed by the Improvement arian ground, vide resolution No. 27 dated 22.05.2000. pproval was also granted by the Government for exchange of said flat on 11.12.2000 and a fresh letter of allotment dated 12.12.2000 was issued and Ground Floor under the Scheme was allotted to Smt. Balbir Kaur - towards differential cost of flat. Thereafter, an agreement to sell was executed 2002. The allottee i.e. Smt. Balbir Kaur, however, died on 02.02.2003 and her daughter Smt. Baljinder Kaur sought transfer of the above flat in her name on the basis of a registered Will gal heirs, namely Sh. Rajdeep Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh sons of Smt. Balbir Trust sought verification of the complete record and asked Smt. Baljinder Kaur to provide affidavit/certificate to the fact that al heir of Smt. Balbir Kaur. A request letter dated 27.04.2006 was thereafter submitted by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in response to the same seeking transfer of the flat in her name. However, before actual transfer ed on 01.07.2006. Her husband transfer of the flat in his Gaurav Arora 2025.06.02 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-483-2025 name, vide letter dated 22.01.2010. The request however remained pending since he was a Class 3. Subsequently one Sh. Harmandeep Singh Kaur also submitted an application for transfer of the said flat on 24.05.2018 in favour of all aforesaid claim for transfer of the flat in their respective names, one Smt. Damini Sharma wife of Sh. submitted an application seeking transfer of the said flat in her basis of a registered Will dated 20.01.2004 executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in her favour, which was allowed Feeling aggrieved against the same, the appellant preferred CWP No. 31146-2024 and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 4. Learned counsel for appellant Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition filed by Appellant by affirming award dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service), Ludhiana flat was allotted by appellant Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme whe Vivekanand Society was formed by residents of the Society for the welfare of the residents. The Society was only of the area/flats and from the residents of the society. Learned counsel submits that the society is not vested with any power empowered to transfer flats. in respect of the charges the Society gave 5 vide letter dated 22.01.2010. The request however remained pending since he was a Class-II heir. ubsequently one Sh. Harmandeep Singh Kaur also submitted an application for transfer of the said flat on 24.05.2018 in favour of all the legal heirs of Smt. Baljinder Kaur aforesaid claim for transfer of the flat in their respective names, one Smt. Damini Sharma wife of Sh. Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats submitted an application seeking transfer of the said flat in her basis of a registered Will dated 20.01.2004 executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur , which was allowed vide award dated Feeling aggrieved against the same, the appellant preferred CWP 24 and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for appellant-Trust Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition filed by Appellant by affirming award dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service), Ludhiana flat was allotted by appellant-Trust originally Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Scheme where a Society namely Swami Vivekanand Society was formed by residents of the Society for the welfare of The Society was only responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the area/flats and accordingly charged and collected maintenance charges from the residents of the society. Learned counsel submits that the society is not vested with any power to transfer flats and it is only t empowered to transfer flats. NOC was required in respect of the charges at the time of transfer of any flat and merely because gave NOC to respondent No. 2-Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats 3 vide letter dated 22.01.2010. The request however remained pending ubsequently one Sh. Harmandeep Singh son of Smt. Baljinder Kaur also submitted an application for transfer of the said flat on 24.05.2018 of Smt. Baljinder Kaur. Apart from the aforesaid claim for transfer of the flat in their respective names, one Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats, also submitted an application seeking transfer of the said flat in her name on the basis of a registered Will dated 20.01.2004 executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur vide award dated 14.05.2024. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the appellant preferred CWP 24 and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Trust contends that learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition filed by Appellant-Trust by affirming award dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 1- Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service), Ludhiana. She further contends that the originally to the allotee Balbir Kaur in re a Society namely Swami Vivekanand Society was formed by residents of the Society for the welfare of responsible for upkeep and maintenance accordingly charged and collected maintenance charges from the residents of the society. Learned counsel submits that the society is transfer flats and it is only the trust who is NOC was required to be taken from the Society at the time of transfer of any flat and merely because Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats, vide letter dated 22.01.2010. The request however remained pending n of Smt. Baljinder Kaur also submitted an application for transfer of the said flat on 24.05.2018 . Apart from the aforesaid claim for transfer of the flat in their respective names, one , also name on the basis of a registered Will dated 20.01.2004 executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur Feeling aggrieved against the same, the appellant preferred CWP learned Single Trust Permanent the to the allotee Balbir Kaur in re a Society namely Swami Vivekanand Society was formed by residents of the Society for the welfare of responsible for upkeep and maintenance accordingly charged and collected maintenance charges from the residents of the society. Learned counsel submits that the society is he trust who is to be taken from the Society at the time of transfer of any flat and merely because , Gaurav Arora 2025.06.02 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-483-2025 does not entitle flats only rests with the Trust. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for petition filed by and thus prays for dismissal of the appeal. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of th 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that flat duly registered in the name of Smt. Balbir Kaur (since deceased), original allottee of the said flat favour of her daughter namely Baljinder Kaur 10.12.2002. Thereafter, 20.01.2004 with Damini Sharma w/o (Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats respondent No. 2) sell dated 20.01.2004 was duly paid by respondent Haarish Vats. Further, Smt. Baljinder Kaur also dated 20.01.2004 and 20.01.2004, physical possession of the above flat was also given whereas the actual transfer of ownership of the above flat on record could not take place due to lack of probate of will executed by Smt. Balbir Kaur in favour of Smt. Baljinder Kaur. took place in the year 2009 the said flat, probate was also granted Kaur in the year 2011 in the petition filed heirs of Smt. Baljinder Kaur 1925. There was proper publication of said proceedings as well. Further, 5 does not entitle it to grant transfer certificate since rests with the Trust. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. petition filed by appellant has rightly been dismissed and thus prays for dismissal of the appeal. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the of this case with their able assistance In the present case, it is not in dispute that flat duly registered in the name of Smt. Balbir Kaur (since deceased), original allottee of the said flat. She before her death bestow of her daughter namely Baljinder Kaur Thereafter, Baljinder Kaur entered into with Damini Sharma w/o (Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats respondent No. 2). The entire consideration amount in lieu of agreement to sell dated 20.01.2004 was duly paid by respondent . Further, Smt. Baljinder Kaur also dated 20.01.2004 and in part performance of the above agreement to sell dated , physical possession of the above flat was also given whereas the al transfer of ownership of the above flat on record could not take place due to lack of probate of will executed by Smt. Balbir Kaur in favour of Smt. Baljinder Kaur. Ultimately, transfer of flat in favour of Smt.Baljinder Kaur took place in the year 2009 in the records of the Improvement Trust probate was also granted to all the legal heirs of Smt. Baljinder in the year 2011 in the petition filed by heirs of Smt. Baljinder Kaur) under Section 276 of There was proper publication of said proceedings as well. Further, 4 since authorization to transfer the respondent No. 2 submits that writ dismissed by learned Single Judge We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the with their able assistance. In the present case, it is not in dispute that flat in question was duly registered in the name of Smt. Balbir Kaur (since deceased), who was the before her death bestowed the same in of her daughter namely Baljinder Kaur , vide registered will dated entered into an agreement to sell on with Damini Sharma w/o (Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats- . The entire consideration amount in lieu of agreement to sell dated 20.01.2004 was duly paid by respondent No. 2-Harish Sharma @ . Further, Smt. Baljinder Kaur also executed a registered will in part performance of the above agreement to sell dated , physical possession of the above flat was also given whereas the al transfer of ownership of the above flat on record could not take place due to lack of probate of will executed by Smt. Balbir Kaur in favour of Smt. of flat in favour of Smt.Baljinder Kaur in the records of the Improvement Trust and for to all the legal heirs of Smt. Baljinder by Sh. Harmandeep Singh (legal under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, There was proper publication of said proceedings as well. Further, the submits that writ Single Judge We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the was who was the in vide registered will dated agreement to sell on - . The entire consideration amount in lieu of agreement to Harish Sharma @ ill in part performance of the above agreement to sell dated , physical possession of the above flat was also given whereas the al transfer of ownership of the above flat on record could not take place due to lack of probate of will executed by Smt. Balbir Kaur in favour of Smt. of flat in favour of Smt.Baljinder Kaur for to all the legal heirs of Smt. Baljinder legal the Indian Succession Act, There was proper publication of said proceedings as well. Further, Gaurav Arora 2025.06.02 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-483-2025 execution of agreement to sell as well as will executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in favour of Damini Sharma wife of respondent No. 2 Haarish Vats was never disputed by any of the part 8. Damini Sharma husband and a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was granted and on account of a settlement arrived at between her and her husband, she surrendered her rights in the flat in question and gave the ownership right to her husband (Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats transfer the flat in question, Legal Services Authority by Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 his name. The case was then referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat, where both the parties appeared and consent, the application transfer the flat 9. In publication or public notice Kaur (since deceased) favour of Baljinder Kaur 2009. Furthermore, requirement for public notice had been fulfilled by the probate court at the relevant time through publication in newspapers. Therefore, any fresh insistence on issuing notices to siblings of Smt. Balbir Kaur aware of the proceedings 10. It is apparent that such procedural insistence is being used not in furtherance of justice, but rather as a of ownership to respondent 5 execution of agreement to sell as well as will executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in favour of Damini Sharma wife of respondent No. 2 was never disputed by any of the part Damini Sharma was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband and a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was granted and on account of a settlement arrived at between her and her husband, she rrendered her rights in the flat in question and gave the ownership right to Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats). As the trust was not ready to transfer the flat in question, Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats Legal Services Authority by filing an application Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 seeking transfer . The case was then referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat, where parties appeared and on the basis of their the application was allowed and a direction was given to transfer the flat in question in favour of Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats In these circumstances, insistence by publication or public notice prior to transfer of the property to Smt. Baljinder (since deceased) is wholly unwarranted and illogical r of Baljinder Kaur (since deceased) was already effected in 2009. Furthermore, requirement for public notice had been by the probate court at the relevant time through publication in newspapers. Therefore, any fresh insistence on issuing notices to siblings of Smt. Balbir Kaur (since deceased) is unjustified aware of the proceedings. It is apparent that such procedural insistence is being used not in furtherance of justice, but rather as a mechanism to delay of ownership to respondent No. 2, who is legally entitled to the property. The 5 execution of agreement to sell as well as will executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur in favour of Damini Sharma wife of respondent No. 2-Harish Sharma @ was never disputed by any of the parties. was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband and a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was granted and on account of a settlement arrived at between her and her husband, she rrendered her rights in the flat in question and gave the ownership right to ). As the trust was not ready to Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats approached the filing an application under Section 22 (c) of transfer of the flat in question in . The case was then referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat, where their respective submissions and direction was given to the Trust to Harish Sharma @ Haarish Vats. these circumstances, insistence by appellant-Trust on a further prior to transfer of the property to Smt. Baljinder unwarranted and illogical. The transfer in was already effected in the year 2009. Furthermore, requirement for public notice had been adequately by the probate court at the relevant time through publication in newspapers. Therefore, any fresh insistence on issuing notices to siblings of unjustified, particularly when they were It is apparent that such procedural insistence is being used not in mechanism to delay the rightful transfer , who is legally entitled to the property. The execution of agreement to sell as well as will executed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur Harish Sharma @ was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband and a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was granted and on account of a settlement arrived at between her and her husband, she rrendered her rights in the flat in question and gave the ownership right to ). As the trust was not ready to approached the of in . The case was then referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat, where respective submissions and to on a further prior to transfer of the property to Smt. Baljinder . The transfer in the year adequately by the probate court at the relevant time through publication in newspapers. Therefore, any fresh insistence on issuing notices to siblings of they were It is apparent that such procedural insistence is being used not in the rightful transfer , who is legally entitled to the property. The Gaurav Arora 2025.06.02 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-483-2025 entire chain of documents, including Wills, probate orders, and public notices, completely establish further procedural requisites. 11. All relevant adjudicated by the competent authorities. Therefore, the undue reliance on procedural technicalities warranted under the facts and circumstances of the presen 12. In light of the above discussion and reasons, this Court finds illegality, perversity, or impropriety the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana affirmed, vide judgment dated of this Court. 13. No other argument was address 14. Accordingly, the present appeal 15. All the pending application (LISA GILL) JUDGE May 19, 2025 Gaurav Arora 5 entire chain of documents, including Wills, probate orders, and public notices, completely establish the lawful transfer of title and leave no room for doubt or further procedural requisites. All relevant aspects have already been considered and adjudicated by the competent authorities. Therefore, the undue reliance on procedural technicalities, such as an additional publication, is under the facts and circumstances of the presen In light of the above discussion and reasons, this Court finds illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the award dated 14.05.2024 Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana affirmed, vide judgment dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge No other argument was addressed Accordingly, the present appeal is All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed ) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 6 entire chain of documents, including Wills, probate orders, and public notices, the lawful transfer of title and leave no room for doubt or aspects have already been considered and adjudicated by the competent authorities. Therefore, the undue reliance on , such as an additional publication, is not necessary or under the facts and circumstances of the present case. In light of the above discussion and reasons, this Court finds no award dated 14.05.2024 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana, which was passed by the learned Single Judge ed. is dismissed. , if any, also stand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes entire chain of documents, including Wills, probate orders, and public notices, the lawful transfer of title and leave no room for doubt or aspects have already been considered and adjudicated by the competent authorities. Therefore, the undue reliance on not necessary or no passed by , which was passed by the learned Single Judge Gaurav Arora 2025.06.02 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document