Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monti Roy vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No. 1603 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No. 1603 of 2012
Monti Roy
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
2. CWP No. 4200 of 2012
Chamkaur Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
3. CWP No. 8190 of 2012
Satnam Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
4. CWP No. 8229 of 2012
Santokh Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CWP No. 1603 of 2012 -2-
5. CWP No. 6356 of 2012
Pritam Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
6. CWP No. 9470 of 2012
Malkit Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
Date of decision: 8.10.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. SS Salar, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in all the cases).
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2 (CWP No. 1603 & 4200 of 2012).
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2
(in CWP Nos. 6356, 8190, 8229 and 9470 of 2012).
****
CWP No. 1603 of 2012 -3-
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1603, 4200, 6356, 8190, 8229 and 9470 of 2012, as all the cases pertain to determination of claim of the petitioner(s) for allotment of residential plots under the Local Displaced Persons category on reserved price in accordance with the Punjab Town Improvement Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots Rules, 1964 as amended/re-notified in 1975 and 1983.
While the petitioner in CWP No. 1603 of 2012 (Monti Roy Vs. State of Punjab and another) has been denied allotment of residential plot under the LDP category on the plea that he failed to prove himself the legal heir of Smt.Udham Kaur, who was admittedly a Local Displaced Person, the claims of petitioner(s) in other writ petitions bearing Nos. 4200, 6356, 8190, 8229 and 9470 of 2012, have been turned down on the plea that they failed to apply along with earnest money within the prescribed period.
The Improvement Trust, Ludhaina, has filed its reply- affidavit maintaining that the claim of the petitioner(s) have been rightly turned down on one or the other ground, briefly noticed above.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Counsel for the parties are ad-idem that in CWP No. 1603 of 2012, the question of fact whether the petitioner (Monti Roy) is the legal heir of Smt. Udham Kaur can be effectively determined by the Administrator/Chairman of the Trust on consideration of the CWP No. 1603 of 2012 -4- documents/material if any, produced by the petitioner for such determination.
In our considered view, the Administrator/Chairman of the Trust shall be required firstly to find out as to how many legal heirs were left behind by Smt. Udham Kaur and whether the petitioner also falls in the line of succession in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Administrator/Chairman of the Trust shall also be required to find out whether any other legal heir of Smt. Udham Kaur ever raised, granted or declined such claim. This can be done by issuing a public notice at the expense of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be required to produce the documentary proof to establish his relationship with Smt. Udham Kaur within Class-I or Class-II or other category of legal heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner's claim shall be determined within a period of 6 months in accordance with law. Suffice it would be to observe that if the petitioner is found to be legal heir of Smt. Udham Kaur and eligible for allotment of plot under the LDP scheme, such an allotment shall be made in his favour at the current reserved price.
Adverting to other group of petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 4200, 6356, 8190, 8229 and 9470 of 2012, their claims have been turned down only on the ground that they did not apply along with earnest money within the prescribed period.
This Court in LPA No. 821 of 2012 (Improvement Trust Ludhiana Vs. Joginder Singh and others) decided on August 30, 2012, CWP No. 1603 of 2012 -5- held as follows:
"The question whether a Local Displaced Person can be denied allotment of the plot only on the ground of delay in approaching the appellant-Improvement Trust has been gone into and answered in favour of the Local Displaced Persons by two Division Benches of this Court in CWP No. 6801 of 2000 (Surjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) decided on
2.11.2000 and CWP No. 17248 of 1999 (Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) decided on 25.4.2001 (Annexures P-13 and P-14 respectively). That apart, the private respondents have successfully proved on record that other Local Displaced Persons who too deposited earnest money with them in the year 1990 have been allotted plots vide orders of different dates (Annexures P-18 to P-39)."
The delay caused in approaching the Improvement Trust thus should not work to the disadvantage of LDP if he is otherwise entitled to allotment of a plot under the Rules, for no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the Trust as the petitioner(s) would be entitled to allotment at the current reserved price only.
All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Administrator/Chairman of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust to re-determine the claim of the petitioners, keeping in view the CWP No. 1603 of 2012 -6- above-cited decision and in case, they are found entitled to plot, the consequential allotment(s) be made in their favour.
The needful shall be done in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
October 08, 2012 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE