Jagdish Rai vs State of Punjab

R.S. Mongia, J.—In pursuance of my orders dated 10th December, 1993 the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Khanna is present alongwith the relevant record and has assisted me for the disposal of the case.

An area of 5.5 acres of land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1974 for Improvement Trust, Khanna, for a Shopping Centre in Karnail Singh Road, Khanna, popularly known as Shri Guru Amardas Market Scheme.

Out of the acquired area, 11 Kanals 12 Marlas was the land which belonged to the petitioner. He being a local displaced person under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules''), applied for an allotment of a plot in the scheme. Initially site for shop-cum-office No. 5 measuring about 92 square yards was allotted to the petitioner by the Improvement Trust on 25th July, 1978. The petitioner wrote to the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Khanna on 14th August, 1978 (Annexure P/3) that since land measuring 11 Kanals 12 Mardas of the petitioner had been acquired for the execution of the scheme by the Improvement Trust, he may be allotted any of the two plots out of plot Nos. 17-A, 17-B and 11-A on the reserved price. It may be observed that the area of these plots was about 49 square yards, 45 square yards and 40 square yards respectively. It is stated on behalf of the respondent-Trust that on 9th June, 1978 the scheme was modified and under the modified scheme SCO No. 5 did not exist. The petitioner was thereafter vide communication dated 3rd October, 1978 from the Trust was informed that plot No. 131 measuring 29.5 square yards (commercial plot) was being offered to him for allotment in the scheme under reference. Petitioner, however, insisted vide his communication dated 5th October, 1978 that he may be allotted two plots out of commercial plots No. 17-A, 17-B and 11-A. The petitioner was, however, informed vide communication dated 21st February, 1980 by the Chairman, Improvement Trust that the allotment of plot No. 131 had been cancelled by the Trust and that he would be allotted a plot in the scheme in the reserved area for which the layout plan was being prepared shortly. Thereafter on 28th February, 1980 the Chairman, Improvement Trust informed the petitioner that plot No. 154 measuring 22 square yards was being offered to him for allotment which was a commercial plot. The petitioner wrote back that he should be allotted a bigger plot and allotment of plot No. 154 may be cancelled. This was followed by many reminders. However, on 15th December, 1983 the petitioner was informed by the Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Khanna that he could not be allotted a shop-cum-office in the capacity of a local displaced person as per the instructions of the Government. Thereafter, long correspondence was exchanged between the petitioner and the Improvement Trust. Improvement Trust was writing to the petitioner that his case alongwith full facts had been sent to the State Government form consideration and further action would be taken only after the receipt of decision by the State Government. Since no action was taken by the respondent-Improvement trust and the State Government, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it cannot be denied that under the Rules the petitioner was a displaced person and was entitled to an allotment of a plot to the extent of 500 square yards (residential). It is not denied that persons similarly situated like the petitioner, whose land had been acquired, at least some of them, had been offered commercial plots of various sizes and in fact the petitioner had also been offered commercial sites; firstly SCO No. 5 measuring about 92 square yards, then plot No. 131 measuring 29.5 square yards and thereafter plot No. 154 measuring 22 square yards. The stand of the respondent-Trust is that the petitioner was insisting on two out of the three plots i.e. 17-A, 17-B and 11-A time and again and was not accepting the allotment that was being made by the Trust. Now, according to the respondent-Trust there is no commercial plot available in the Scheme. Further the case of the respondent-Trust is that 1975 Rules referred to above were repealed by the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 and according to these Rules, the petitioner is entitled to residential plot of 200 square yards. Further according to communication from the Government dated 27th April 1984 (Copy Annexure R-1 with the written statement) all the Improvement Trusts were informed that it had been decided that the local displaced persons of Tank Stand Schemes or any other Commercial Scheme for that matter should be accommodated in other residential schemes of the Improvement Trust. On these premises learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of any commercial site in the Scheme.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in fact about 400 square yards area had been reserved in the scheme for special purpose and quite a bit of that area has been utilised by the Trust by constructing Booths which have been allotted to various persons by auction. He has pointed out that a plot measuring 42.5 square yards (in front of the booths on the entrance to the scheme area from G.T.Road) is still available for allotment, though, according to the Trust, this plot has been reserved for special purposes.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that 1983 Rules would be applicable to the Scheme, which were framed after the enforcement of the 1983 Rules and all schemes for which land had been acquired earlier than the enforcement of 1983 Rules would be covered by 1975 Rules. The Instructions/decision which were issued by the State Government (Annexure R-1) to which reference has been made above would not be applicable retrospectively to the Scheme for which land had already been acquired and these would be applicable only to those Schemes which were sanctioned after the Instructions were issued.

Admittedly, in the present case, some of the persons, whose land had been acquired for the Scheme were allotted commercial sites as displaced persons including the petitioner. The only dispute the petitioner was raising was regarding the area and a particular number of the plot that he was wanting to be given to him.

The Scheme was finalised in the year 1974 and modified in the year 1978 and the plot of about 42.5 square yards to which reference has been made above, has so far not been utilised for any special purposes. In fact out of 400 square yards, which was reserved for special purposes, more than half has been utilised by the Trust for construction of booths. Ends of justice would be met if area measuring 42.5 square yards is allotted to the petitioners to satisfy his claim for allotment as a displaced person. It does not lie in the mouth of the Trust to say that the petitioner cannot be allotted a commercial plot having allotted commercial plots to certain other persons whose land was acquired alongwith the petitioner and in fact petitioner was offered for allotment of commercial plot, when the same was cancelled, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and respondent-Trust is directed to allot a plot measuring 42.5 square yards to the petitioner to which reference has been made above at the reserved price, to which the petitioner was earlier offered i.e. at the rate of Rs. 290/- per square yard.

Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that the abovesaid directions have been given in the peculiar facts of this case as noticed above and may not be cited as a precedent.