JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.: - The instant appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 15.1.2010 rendered by the learned Single holding that the memo, dated 9.1.2009 (P-7), issued to the petitioner-respondent No. 1 by the appellant Improvement Trust, Patiala, demanding a sum of Rs.5,86,856/-, being the cost of the plot, which was allotted to him on 12.8.1994, is unsustainable in the eyes of law because it has been issued 15 years later. 2. The dispute pertained to allotment of plot by the appellant-Trust in the area of development scheme known as ‘Saheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Scheme, Sunder Nagar Colony, Patiala’. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was considered to be a displaced person and alternative plot of equal value measuring about 100 Square Yards was allotted to him on 12.8.1994. On the basis of some complaint, the allotment was sought to be cancelled by citing the reason that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the property and had obtained allotment without any valid title of the acquired land. In fact, the appellant-Trust had found that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 did not have a registered sale deed in his favour and only produced an agreement of sale executed between him and the original owner on 9.6.1983. The dispute only was that the allotment could not have been made to a person who did not have a valid registered sale deed. However, it has come on record that the allotment was made when Shri Bishan Singh, the original owner and signatory of the agreement of sale wrote a letter dated 19.5.1988 declaring that he had sold the property on the basis of the aforesaid agreement. The aforesaid Shri Bishan Singh also stated that he would have no objection for an allotment of the property to the writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 and the construction that may be raised thereon. In essence, it was a disclaimer by a person and he affirmed that he had handed over the right to the petitioner-respondent No. 1. He also made it clear that the allotment need not be made to him and the same be issued to the petitioner-respondent No. 1. Therefore, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 could not be imputed with any misrepresentation or concealment. He also made it clear that the allotment need not be made to him and the same be issued to the petitioner-respondent No. 1. Therefore, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 could not be imputed with any misrepresentation or concealment. It is a different matter that the appellant-Trust has made a policy later on that allotment could be made only to a registered land owner and not to a Power of Attorney or on the basis of a disclaimer. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Trust and are of the view that no ground for interference in the judgment dated 15.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. There is no opposition by Shri Bishan Singh, the real owner, to the allotment of plot to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. Merely because later on a different policy decision has been taken, would not result into cancellation of already allotted plot. According to later decision only registered land owners were to be allotted the plot by the appellant Trust. However, such a policy decision cannot have any retrospective effect, as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the instant appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. ------------