WRIT PETITION 7958 of 1988 on 8 July 1973

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see thejudgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

*****

K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL)

CWP No.7958 of 1988

1. The petitioner seeks for allotment of a plot in his capacity as a locally displaced person, he having suffered loss of property by acquisition under Punjab Town Improvement Act of 1922. The claim of the petitioner isthat as a displaced person, he was entitled to be offered an alternative plotof a similar size. The property which he had lost in acquisition was 300 sq.yds and he had applied for an allotment to the Chairman of theImprovement Trust in the year 1987 and he had also made a payment ofRs.500/- as earnest money on 25.8.1987. The grievance of the petitioner isthat although his brother and sister, who had similarly lost property, hadbeen favoured with allotment of plots, the same had been denied to him.

2. The writ petition, therefore, came to be filed seeking for aissuance of writ of mandamus for allotment of a plot which had beenoriginally allotted to him by the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhianawith the boundaries mentioned in the proceedings.

3. The objection on behalf of the Improvement Trust was that thenotification for acquisition had been made on 8.7.1973 under Section 36 ofthe Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and the acquisition was made on21.5.1975 as per Section 42 and award has been passed on 1.8.1975. It isa submission on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had not madeany application for allotment all the years till the year 1987 but the Chairmanof the Improvement Trust had no authority to make allotment withoutconfirmation by the Trust. The further objection was that the Chairman hadno power to allot a commercial plot and the Rules that were applicable,when he moved an application in the year 1987, was only the Punjab TownImprovement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots ) Rules 1983. The1983 Rules, apart from setting out the definition of locally displaced personset out how the allotment in respect of the displaced persons having a jointkatha, being co-sharers, could be allotted only for one plot taking intoaccount the whole of joint land acquired and further that the allotment couldbe made under Rule 11, only to persons who had applied for allotmentwithin a period of three months from the date of the commencement of the

Rules. Such allotment would again be available only to persons, whoowned more than half an acre of property, which was lost in the acquisition.4.The first point for consideration would be the relevant rule thatwould be applicable. It could be noticed that there were at different times,three types of Rules, one Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land DisposalRules, 1964; subsequently, Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots byImprovement Trust Rules, 1975 till it was replaced by Punjab TownImprovement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots ) Rules, 1983. Theapplicability of the relevant rule has been dealt with in several decisions ofthis Hon'ble Court and particularly the matter was considered inSmt.Sushma Palta and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reportedin 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 223,where a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Courtwas considering the applicability of the Rule, in relation to the definition of alocally displaced person. Adverting to a situation that the acquisition hadtaken place prior to 1975, the Division Bench held that the definition thatwould govern, cannot be the 1975 Rules but only the Rules of the year 1951would be applicable. This issue came up again in yet another case whichwas disposed in second appeal in Kulwinder Singh Vs. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, in SA No.2699 of 1997, where the Court held that anadvertisement which has been issued in the year 1974 before the actualacqusition would not be sufficient compliance of the Rules of the year 1964,since the publication was to be effected in a particular manner after theacquisition is made and therefore, any advertisement issued even prior tothe date of acquisition cannot fetter the right of the individual to apply for anallotment without reference to the date stipulated in the 1974 advertisement.Judgment of this Court was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inImprovement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Kulwinder Singh in Civil AppealNo.1487 of 2003.Gurdev Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and anotherinCWPNo.17248 of 1999,again addressed the issue of allotment of a plot under Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules 1964, when the Court byapplication of the 1964 Rules directed the competent authority to pass anorder of allotment of a suitable residential plot in a scheme area. Thedecision in Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersin CWPNo.4242 of 1985, which the learned counsel for the respondent was fair tocite is the last judgment in the string of decision that considers the relevantrules that would be applicable and the manner of fixation of price. Referringto an acquisition of property and allotment of land to a locally displacedperson prior to 1975, the learned single Judge held that the 1964 Ruleswould govern the right of the parties and the property could be allotted tohim, if he is found eligible for such allotment at a rate at which the trust hadlastly sold any residential plot in the development scheme. The entitlementunder the 1964 Rules are set out through Section 2(b).

5. In this case, the allotment by the Chairman of the Board isattacked on the ground that the property was not even specifically describedwith reference to the khalta number or specific extent. It merely had set outthe property by boundaries and the Chairman himself had issued severalallotment letters by the same boundaries to other persons also andtherefore, the offer which had been made was vague and hence notcapable of enforcement .

6. The entitlement for allotment of a plot, in my view, cannot bedenied and the petitioner shall be allotted a plot. Even the contention thatthe plot that was offered by the Chairman of the Board was vague, iscontested by the counsel for the petitioner by saying that the property isspecifically described with boundaries and there is no difficulty aboutidentifying the same. Learned counsel for the respondent, however,contends that within the boundaries mentioned, there is larger extent ofproperty more than 2000 sq. yds, which the petitioner is not entitled to. Hecontends that the Improvement Trust has passed a Resolution on 6.2.2001

CWP No.7958 of 1988

proposing to raise a monument in the memory of martyrs of Kargil at theproperty, which the petitioner claims having been allotted to him. Theconstruction of the memorial was stayed by an order of this Court in this writpetition, when the place was sought to be demarcated by erection of steelgrill fencing.

7. The exact location of the property and the extent of property,originally allotted to the petitioner as wholly falling within the boundaries, isa subject of dispute between the parties, which this court in its exercise ofjurisdictional power under Article 226 of Constitution cannot unravel withoutany further evidence. If the property, which is available there within theboundaries is only limited to the extent of 300 sq. yds, even a subsequentResolution setting it apart for constructing a monument, shall not be put outagainst the petitioner. It shall be duty of the respondent to look for someother property for such use. If, on the other hand, the extent of property islarger, and the petitioner shall not be entitled to allotment of such a largeplot, then the respondent would be entitled to put it to use for which aResolution has been passed and they shall be at liberty to allot to thepetitioner any other alternative plot, which is available under the Scheme.

8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The complianceof order shall be made within a period of three months.

CR No.2515 of 1989 (O&M)

There is no representation for the petitioner. The order ofimpleadment already made by the court below, is confirmed in the light ofentitlement as formed in the order in the writ petition. The Civil Revision istherefore dismissed.

March 09, 2010Vt

(K.KANNAN)JUDGE