CHANNA RAM vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust

CHANNA Ram in the present complaint filed against Jalandhar Improvement Trust claims a direction to the Trust to allot a plot measuring one Kanal in any suitable development scheme of the Trust on the reserved price and to pay compensation for the loss suffered for 17 years as the Trust did not decide the question of allotment of the plot to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 6 lacs was claimed under this head. On account of mental torture, distress, humiliation, harassment and inconvenience etc., a sum of Rs. 1.5 lac was claimed. A sum of Rs. 12 lacs was claimed as price of the plot taking into consideration its appreciation in value. In this manner, total of Rs. 19.50 lacs were claimed as compensation.

CHANNA Ram, the complainant as per agreement dated January 1, 1970 purchased 1 Kanal, 5 Marias and 3 Sarsahies out of Khata No 1202/1537, Khasra No. 3651/2/1 (3 Kanals -16 Mari as) as per Jamabandi 1967-70 from one Surinder Kumar s/o Mathura Dass for a sum of Rs. 6,800/- and took possession thereof. The conveyance deed was executed on February 16, 1972 which was got registered with the Sub- Registrar (Annexure C1). The Improvement Trust acquired the aforesaid piece of land of the complainant under the Development Scheme known as 43 Acre Scheme. The possession of the land was taken by the Trust on May 2,1980 vide Notice dated April 21, 1980, No. LA 179 dated April 22,1980 and JIT No. 1255 dated April 25, 1980, Annexure C2. The compensation against the acquired land was received by the complainant. As per provisions of the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules 1954, as applicable under the scheme aforesaid the land comprising in the scheme was to be offered as a first instance to local displaced persons whose land was acquired for the purposes of the scheme. Thus, the complainant was entitled to allotment of one Kanal of plot under the scheme for which he applied to the Trust. With a mala fide intention, the Trust delayed the matter of allotment of plot to the complainant. In 1992, the Trust published a news item in the News Paper calling upon the non allottees to apply again (Annexure C3). The complainant again applied for allotment of plot on the prescribed pro-forma and on deposit of requisite fee of Rs. 1,000/- on May 4, 1992 (Annexure C4). Thereafter from time to time, he was called upon to lead evidence before the Trust about his ownership of his land which was acquired, which was done in October, 1993. After the scheme of 43 Acres was taken in hand, the Trust did not implement the scheme in its true sense. It allotted plots to several persons, which were described as ''Organised Loot''. The genuine persons, whose land had been acquired were ignored. The Trust allowed the land to be encroached by the trespassers, subsequently showing inability to implement the scheme. Further allegations were made that pick and choose policy was adopted by the Trust for allotting plots to Smt. Inder Kaur wife of Shri Naranjan Singh and Shri P.S. Pattar, whose land was acquired like that of the complainant. However the case of the complainant was not considered. It was further stated that the complainant had approached this Commission earlier and a direction was given on July 16,1996, Annexure C9 to the Trust to take a decision on the application of the complainant for the allotment of the plot. The same was summarily rejected without giving any reasons vide letter No. JIT 2190 dated August 27, 1996. No opportunity was allowed to the complainant for fair consideration of his name and no reasons for rejecting the claim were recorded. A legal notice was issued by the complainant and thereafter the present complaint was filed.

The Trust contested the complaint. Preliminary objections were taken that the complainant had mis-stated the facts. The Trust acquired the land for development of the scheme 43 Acres for which notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was notified on August 6, 1971. On that date, the complainant was not the owner of the land, which was acquired. Hence he was not eligible for allotment of a plot as a local displaced person. As per complainant''s case, agreement to purchase the land was entered into on January 1,1970 and in fact the sale deed in his favour was executed on February 16,1972. The complainant could not take benefit of the Land Disposal Rules of 1954 as he was not the owner of the land at the relevant date. On merits also similar plea was taken emphasising that the land was acquired by notification dated August 6,1971 issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. It was on that very basis that the Trust rejected the claim of the complainant. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant challenging correctness of the date of the notification as August 6, 1971 issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. Earlier the Improvement Trust had taken up the plea that the date of the acquisition was July 21,1971 and subsequently as November 27, 1972. Reference was made to the plea of the Trust taking in Original Complaint No. 3 of 1996 between the same parties wherein direction was given on July 16,1996 that the date of notification was given as July 21, 1971. Reference was also made to Regular Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1991, which was decided by Shri V.B. Handa, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar decided on November 7, 1994 recording the finding that the scheme in question was notified on November 27,1972 (Annexure C12). Thus, it was alleged that the Trust was not coming with clean hands with respect to the actual date of the notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. Some details of allotment made by the Trust were referred to wherein the date of notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was taken into consideration while making allotments to the local displaced persons. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. We have heard Counsel for the parties.

AT the time of conclusion of the arguments. Counsel for both the parties were asked to produce copies of the notifications issued under Sections 36 and 42 of the Improvement Trust Act acquiring the land. On behalf of the complainant, copy of the notification issued under Section 42 of the Improvement Trust Act has been produced whereas on behalf of the opposite party, such a notification issued under Section 36 of the Act has been produced. Thus, much of the controversy with respect to the actual date of issuing of the notification under Section 36 of the Improvement Trust Act stands resolved. Although in the written statement filed by the Improvement Trust, such a date of notification was given as August 6,1971 whereas in the previous litigation and previous complaint between the parties, different dates were given. Since, copy of the notification has been produced, hence date of notification 6.8.1971 will be taken into consideration. Similar matter came up before this Commission as to whether the Rules of 1983 would be applicable or the Rules of 1975 for implementing scheme under the Improvement Trust Act in the matter of allotment of developed plots to the local displaced persons i.e. owners whose land was acquired were to be applicable. In The Improvement Trust, Bathinda v. Vishwa Nath Chhabra, 1998 (1) CON.LT 279, this Commission held that the complainant whose land was acquired at the time when Rules of 1975 were in operation, they would be entitled to the allotment of land as local displaced persons as defined under such rules and the modified definition of the local displaced persons as given in 1983 Rules will not be applicable to them. Their cases would continue to be governed by Rules of 1975. Thus, without discussing respective arguments of Counsel for the parties in this respect and judgments cited, it is held that the case of Channa Ram, the complainant whose land was acquired when Rules of 1954 were in force, would be considered for allotment of developed plot as per such rules. Merely because the allotment of the land was delayed will be no ground that his case should be governed under the Rules of 1983 as technically the complainant will not be covered under the definition of local displaced persons given therein as he was not in possession of the land, which was acquired for a period of two years prior to the acquisition.

THE primary question for consideration in this case is as to whether the eligibility of the complainant is to be considered on the relevant date i.e. August 6,1971 when notification under Section 36 of the Improvement Trust Act intending to acquire the land was issued. In the written statement, the stand taken up by the Improvement Trust is that since on that day, the complainant was not the Absolute owner of the land, he is not entitled to the allotment of a plot. Otherwise, it may be observed that the fact that Channa Ram''s land was acquired and he was paid compensation by the Improvement Trust for the same stands admitted. The object of issuing notification under Section 36 of the Town Improvement Act may be to freeze the price of the land sought to be acquired and any transfer made subsequently with the object of getting enhanced compensation for the land acquired could be ignored. This is based on the principle of fixing market value of the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The aforesaid principle cannot be invoked while giving affect to the beneficiary legislation i.e. Rules of 1954 for allotment of plots to the land owners whose land has been acquired. No relevant date as such is fixed in the Rules of 1954, fixing eligibility for the allotment of developed plots to the owners whose land has been acquired. It may be observed that it is on the finalisation of the acquisition proceedings rather on the date of issuing notification under Section 42 of the Improvement Trust Act that the land on acquisition vests in the Improvement Trust free from all encumbrances. If on that day, compensation of the acquired land had been given to a particular owner and such owner would be entitled to the benefit of the scheme and thus entitled to be allotted a developed plot as per the scheme. It was Channa Ram whose land had been acquired, which he had purchased as per relevant pleadings which are not in dispute as referred to above, and entitled to the allotment of the plot. It was Channa Ram, who was in occupation of the land which was acquired at the time of issuing of both the notifications referred to above. It was he who was dispossessed and dislodged in execution of the scheme of the Improvement Trust. Assuming for the sake of argument that on the relevant date for determining eligibility was August 6, 1971. He was in occupation of the land though his title had not matured. As occupant, he was entitled to allotment of the plot being a local displaced person as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1954. Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ashok Kumar v. The State of Punjab & Others, 1997 (2) PLR 675 in para 17 of the judgment observed as under: "The last aspect of this case on merits, which has to be seen is, whether the Improvement Trust made any provision with regard to the persons who are likely to be affected due to the execution of the scheme or not and in this regard I would like to refer to the additional affidavit filed by Mr. G.S. Khan, Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Nabha who had categorically stated that in the scheme a specific reference was made that the oustee of the scheme i.e. owner/occupier would be treated according to the provisions of Land Disposal Rules of the Trust in force at the time of the execution of the scheme".

The rejection of the claim inspite of direction being given by this Commission in the previous complaint, summarily without referring to the merits of the case, is arbitrary and deficiency in rendering service. When an Executive Authority is supposed to pass any order effecting civil rights of the persons, a reasoned order was required to be recorded and not simply that the case was considered and rejected as has been done in the present case in haste to comply with the order passed by the Commission, which was time bound.

IN this context, reference be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1978 SC 851, wherein it was held as under : "When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise".

THE Improvement Trust allotted plots to different persons who were similarly situated as the complainant, namely Smt. Inder Kaur and Shri P.S. Pattar. Not considering the case of the complainant and ultimately declining his claim that too without recording any reasons is not only illegal as discussed above but is discriminatory and arbitrary. What has been discussed above, leaves no manner of doubt that the Improvement Trust rendered deficient service in not considering the name of the complainant in not allotting plot to him for which he had made the request in writing under the rules referred to above. For all these years, it is the complainant who was forced to move from pillar to post to seek justice. His legitimate claim was arbitrarily denied by the Improvement Trust. THE fact cannot be lost sight of that there has been rise in the cost of construction and cost of material. THEre is no hard and fast rule in such like cases to determine the exact amount of loss that the complainant had suffered. It is only on rough estimation that he is to be compensated for the actual loss suffered as well as for the harassment, agony and inconvenience caused. One such like matter in Ram Chand v. THE Estate Officer Urban Estate, 1998 (1) CON.LT 346 came up before this Commission wherein the delay was of about three years in allotting the plot. While giving direction to the Improvement Trust for allotment of the alternative plot, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was allowed. Since in the present case about seventeen years have passed, a sum of Rs. 1 lac is considered just compensation to be paid by the Improvement Trust to the complainant. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite party the Improvement Trust is directed to allot a plot in 43 Acres Scheme for which the land of the complainant was acquired within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order. In case, one Kanal plot is not available there, alternatively the opposite party is directed to allot such a plot in any other developed scheme of the Improvement Trust on the same price when plots were allotted to Inder Kaur and P.S. Pattar. The opposite party Improvement Trust is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant. The directions aforesaid be complied within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order. Complaint allowed with costs.