State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Atma Singh S/O Bagga Singh vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary on 20 October, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008
Date of institution : 21.5.2008
Date of Decision : 20.10.2011
1. Atma Singh S/o Bagga Singh S/o Kabutar Singh
2. Balram Singh s/o Bagga Singh s/o Kabutar Singh
Both r/o 1399, Phase II, Karnail Singh Nagar, Pakhowal, Ludhiana.
....Complainants.
Versus
1. State of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Punjab,
Chandigarh.
2. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its Chairman.
...Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present:-
For the complainants : Shri S.S. Salar, Advocate
For the opposite party No.1: None.
For the opposite party No.2: Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate and
Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This order shall dispose of two consumer complaints, namely:-
1) Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008(Atma Singh &
Another Vs. State of Punjab & anr.);
2) Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2009(Bant Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & anr.);
as identical questions of law and facts are involved for consideration in these two consumers complaints. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 and the parties would be referred by their status in this complaint. Facts
2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the complainants namely Bagga Singh was the owner of 2 Bighas and 13 Biswas land bearing Khasra No. 80/7/1 (1-16M) and 8/11(0-17) at village Sunet as per the copy of jamabandi(Annexure C-2) for the year 1976-77 of village Sunet. The land of 2 Bighas and 13 Biswas of the father of the complainants was acquired by the Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 2 opposite party No. 2(in short 'O.P. No. 2') i.e. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (in short 'the Trust') for development of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Scheme.
3. Bagga Singh had died on 14.12.1987. The complainants, Piara Singh, Basant Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Sant Kaur are the legal heirs of deceased Bagga Singh. Sh. Piara Singh, Basant Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Sant Kaur had given no objection (Annexure C-6) in the shape of affidavit dated 5.1.2002 that they had no objection if the plot is allotted to the applicants/complainants in lieu of land acquired by O.P. No. 2 of their father for the scheme known as "Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar" as they had already taken their shares from his father when he was alive.
4. The said land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and the possession of the same was also taken by the O.P. No. 2 from the father of the complainants. Mutation No. 5777 was also sanctioned in favour of the opposite party No. 2 - Improvement Trust. The Improvement Trust was liable to allot plots to all the land owners, whose land was acquired under the Scheme as per Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1975 by the Improvement Trust and as such, the father of the complainants was also entitled for the allotment of plot under Local Displaced Person category. On the asking of the O.P., the father of the complainants deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- vide receipt No. 33390 dated 6.5.1982 as earnest money with the O.P. for the allotment of the plot but till date the plot was not allotted to the complainants by the O.P. No.2.
5. The father of the complainants as well as complainants had made various representations to the O.P. No. 2 as well as to the concerned officials of the Government of Punjab for the allotment of the plot but all in vain. The Government of Punjab vide letter dated 19.5.2006 directed the O.P. No.2 to consider the claims of all the persons, who were entitled for the allotment of plot under the category of Local Displaced Person(hereinafter called as 'LDPs'). The O.P. No.2 had already been allotted the plots to the other persons, whose land was acquired by the O.P.No.2 for the scheme known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The O.P. No.2 had not allotted the plot to the complainants on the pretext Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 3 that they are not entitled for allotment of plot as per Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 which came into force w.e.f. 22.12.1983. But the complainants are entitled for the allotment of plot as per the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1975 which were applicable when the land of their father was acquired by the O.P. No.2.
6. Vide letter dated 26.4.2002 the Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust i.e. O.P. No. 2 called the deceased Bagga Singh to appear before him and as per the letter the complainant had appeared before the said Officer as per the time and date given in the said letter, which is Annexure C-7 but of no result.
7. The Rules provides that the land acquired is to be utilized in such a manner that the claims of Local Displaced Persons are satisfied in first instance but the O.P. No. 2 had acted in an arbitrary manner in not allotting the plot to the complainants when they are fully entitled for the allotment of the plot under the L.D.P. category.
8. Again on 28.5.2002, the Trust asked the complainants to produce the consent document from the other legal heirs of deceased Bagga Singh. The complainants had already submitted the said document to the O.P. No. 2 and informed regarding the same to the O.P. No. 2. The case of the complainants' father was also considered by the Committee constituted by the Government of Punjab and he was found to be entitled for the allotment of plot under the category of L.D.Ps.. The name of the father of the complainants is listed at Sr. No. 23. It is pleaded that in the present case, 1975 rules were applicable therefore, the Trust cannot deny the plot to the complainants. It is pleaded that as per the knowledge of the complainants, plots No. 30-C, 444-F and 716-F are lying vacant in the scheme for which the land of the father of the complainants was acquired.
9. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana has not allotted the plot as their claim is valid and deprived the complainants from their rightful claim. It is also pleaded that now the cost of construction has increased manifold. The Trust is Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 4 deficient in service. It is prayed that O.P. may be directed to allot a suitable plot of measuring 500 Sq. Yds. in the scheme for which the land was acquired or in any other scheme developed by the Trust of equal value. It is further prayed that the compensation may be granted to the tune of Rs. 44 lakhs with interest from the date of the complaint till realization if the plot is neither available nor allotted.
10. The O.P. No. 2 filed their written reply in which preliminary objections are taken that the complaint is time barred, As per Rule 4(2) of 1983 Rules the complainants had not submitted the application for allotment in Form 'A' within a period of 3 years from the date of taking over the possession of the land acquired by the Trust and as such, they are not entitled for allotment of any plot. The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainants have prayed for plot of 500 Sq. Yds. or compensation of Rs. 44 lacs as the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Arun Jain Vs. Thai Airways disapproved the practice to claim high compensation to bring the same in the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Plot No. 411-G in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana under the category of LDP has already allotted, as such, they are not entitled for the allotment of the second plot under the same category even the different land was acquired. Further preliminary objection was also taken that the Commission has no power to adjudicate the complaint as detailed evidence is required. On merits, it was admitted that the father of the complainants was owner of land measuring 2 Bigha 13 Biswa in village Sunet and his land was acquired vide notifications dated 2.7.76. It was admitted that the father of the complainants, namely, Bagga Singh had deposited a sum of Rs. 1000/- but the same was deposited after 6 years. That w.e.f. 22.12.1983, the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land & Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 were formulated by repealing the 1975 Rules. As per the said rules, the time period for making an application under LDP category is three years and further the details of the eligibility of allotment of size of the plot in proportion to the extent of land acquired has been mentioned in the Rules of 1983. As per 1983 Rules, the complainants are not entitled for allotment of any plot under LDP category. It is denied that the case of the complainants is covered under 1964 Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 5 and 1975 Rules. The complainants are unable to produce even a single representation made to the O.P. No.2. It was pleaded that prior to deposit of the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, 1983 Rules were published and as per these rules applicant are entitled only if they had submitted the application within three years from the date of taking over the possession of the land. It was pleaded that issuance of letter dated 28.5.2002 is a matter of record but from the same the complainants are not eligible or entitled for the allotment of a plot. It is pleaded that the delay has been caused by the complainants themselves as the land was acquired as per notification dated 2.7.1976 whereas Rs. 1,000/- are deposited on 6.5.1982 i.e. after a lapse of 6 years and the complaint is filed after 32 years from the date of acquisition. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainants may be dismissed with costs.
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2009
11. The version of the complainant-Bant Singh is that his land of 1 Bigha 5 Biswas bearing Khasra No. 61/17 vide jamabandi of village Sunet, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana was acquired for the development Scheme known as 'Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana' by the O.P. No. 2. Mutation No. 5625 was sanctioned in favour of the opposite party No. 2 regarding the same. The possession of the land was also taken by opposite party No. 2.
12. Vide letter (Annexure C-2) dated 28.5.85, the opposite party No. 2 directed the complainant to deposit Rs. 500/- for the allotment of plot under Local Displaced Persons category and he had deposited the same vide receipt (Annexure C-3) dated 28.3.1985 with the O.P. No. 2 and also submitted the Form-A for the allotment of the plot but the plot was not allotted to him. He is entitled for the same under the Improvement Trust Act, 1922 as well as under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1975, which were applicable when the land of the complainant was acquired by the O.P. No.2. He approached the authorities time and again for the allotment of the plot but all in vain. The Govt. of Punjab vide memo No. 7/105/03- ILG-2/4284 dated 19.5.2006 issued the guidelines for disposal of pending applications for allotment of plot received under LDPs category for allotment of Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 6 plot. But the O.P. No.2 has not allotted the plot to the complainant despite the guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government, Punjab vide its letter Annexure C-5 dated 19.5.2006. The application of the complainant was not decided for the allotment of the plot, as such, the complaint filed which is within limitation.
13. On the other hand, opposite party No. 2 in its version admitted the acquisition of land of the complainant for the development scheme known as 'Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar'. It is also alleged that plot No. 45-A of 500 Sq. Yds. in Rajguru Nagar Development Scheme vide letter No. 6775 dated 22.8.2003 has already been allotted, as such, the complainant was not entitled or the allotment of another plot as per the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Discussion
14. We have perused the pleadings of the complaint, written statement as well as documents annexed by the counsel for the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
15. Now we have to decide:-
1. Whether the complainants are entitled for the allotment of plot and which rules were applicable?
2. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
3. Whether the earnest money was not deposited within the prescribed period as per the rules?
4. For what size of the plot, the complainants are entitled and at what price/rate?
16. There is no dispute that land of 2 Bigha 13 Biswas bearing Khasra No. 80/7/1 (1-16) and 8/11(0-17) of the father of the complainants was acquired by the O.P. No.2 for the development scheme known as "Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar" vide notification under Section 36 of the Act on 2.7.1976. There is also no dispute that mutation No. 5777 (Annexure C-2) of the said land was sanctioned in favour of the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and the Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 7 possession of the same was also taken by the opposite party No. 2 from the father of the complainants. There is also no dispute that Rs. 1000/- was deposited vide receipt Annexure C-3 by the father of the complainants for the allotment of plot under the LDP category as per the Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots Rules, 1975 of the Improvement Trust, which were applicable at the time of acquisition of land by the opposite party No. 2 of the father of the complainants. But no plot was allotted by the opposite party No. 2 to the father of the complainants during his life time, who died on 14.12.1987. The present complainants Atma Singh and Balram Singh as well as Piara Singh, Basant Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Sant Kaur are the legal heirs of the deceased Bagga Singh, the real owner of the land. Sh. Piara Singh, Basant Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Sant Kaur sons and daughters of deceased Bagga Singh vide Annexure C-6 had given their consent that they have no objection if the plot is allotted to the complainants in lieu of the land which was acquired by O.P. No. 2 i.e. Improvement Trust as they had already taken their share from his father when he was alive.
17. Till the filing of the complaint, the application of the complainants for the allotment of plot was not decided by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. neither the same was rejected nor the plot was allotted to the complainants despite the guidelines for disposal of pending applications received under L.D.P. category for allotment of plot by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government on 19.5.2006 (Annexure C-4). The relevant guideline No. 3 is reproduced:-
"As this work is required to be completed in a time bound manner, you are requested to ensure that all cases are considered in meetings of the Trust by 30th June, 2006 positively. A certificate may be sent to Government under your signatures by 5th July, 2006 that all applications received under the LDP category have been disposed off as per guidelines given in this letter."
as such, the complaint is within limitation.
18. The land of the deceased Bagga Singh was acquired by the opposite party No. 2 vide notification under Section 36 of the Act on 2.7.1976 as Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 8 per preliminary objection No. 1 of the opposite party No. 2 and the version of the opposite party No. 2 is that as per Punjab Improvement Trust (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots), Rules, 1983 the complainants are not entitled for the allotment of plot as the father of the complainant had not applied for allotment of plot within three years from taking over the possession of the land acquired by the Trust. It is not disputed that the father of the complainants had deposited Rs. 1,000/- with the Improvement Trust vide receipt Annexure C-3 on 6.5.1982 i.e. before the issuance of Punjab Improvement Trust Rules, 1983. The opposite party No. 2 had also not produced any evidence when the possession of the land was taken by the opposite party No. 2 from the father of the complainants, as such, the version of the O.P. No. 2 is not correct that the father of the complainant had not applied for allotment of the plot within time.
19. We have also perused Annexure C-9 i.e. list of applicants dated 28.6.1979, who qualify the requirements for the allotment of plots under the category of L.D.P. At serial No. 23 of the said list the name of the father of the complainants is mentioned as eligible for the allotment of the plot. The extract of the list is reproduced:-
Sr. Name Date of Date of Date Area of Whether Whether Applied Re-
No. Applica- Deposit of from land Sole or eligible, if self or ma
tion EMI which acquired Joint yes, area through rks
applicant (in Sq. Owner (in Sq. GPA
is owner Yards) yards) etc.
of land
23 Bagga 06.05.82 1976-77 1250 Sq. Co Share Yes GPA
Singh Yard
S/o
Kabutar
Singh
20. The version of the O.P. is that the father of the complainants was not eligible as per the Rules of 1983 but the same are not applicable. The land was acquired vide notification under Section 36 of the Act on 2.7.1976. As such, the Punjab Improvement Trust (Utilization of Land and Plots) Rules, 1983 are not applicable when the land of father of the complainants was acquired on 2.7.1976 and the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1975 were applicable at that time. In the said rules, the definition of Local Displaced Persons is given in Rule No. 2(a), which is reproduced:-Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 9
"2(a) Local Displaced Persons being a person, who is the owner of a property acquired by the Trust for the execution of a Scheme and has been such owner for a continuous period of 2 years immediately before the first publication of the scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Punjab Improvement Act, 1922."
21. So as per the above definition, the father of the complainants was eligible for the allotment of plot on priority under Local Displaced Persons as per the 1975 Rules, which were applicable at the time of acquisition of the land of the father of the complainants. The counsel for the complainant has argued that in a similar case, one Kulwinder Singh s/o Mukand Singh resident of Village Sunet had filed a Civil Suit titled as "Kulwinder Singh s/o Mukand Singh r/o Vill. Sunet Vs. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana" for declaration that being the only heir of Mukand Singh deceased he is entitled to get a plot measuring 500 Sq. Yds. to be allotted to him in accordance with the Town Improvement Act as his father was a Local Displaced Person on account of the fact that 49 Kanal 13 Marlas land belonging to him situated in village Sunet, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana had been acquired by the Improvement Trust for the scheme of 550 acres known as "Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar" and he had applied for allotment of the plot and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- vide receipt 82680 dated 6.8.1985 but though the defendant had allotted the plots to various other persons, no such allotment had been made to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff Kulwinder Singh was dismissed by the Trial Court on 5.9.1992. He filed an appeal against the order of the Trial Court in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana which was decided by Sh. Inderjit Singh, Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana bearing Civil Appeal No. 65 of 11.12.1992 RPT 240 of 24.3.1995 on 5.3.1997 titled as Kulwinder Singh s/o Mukand Singh Versus Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. The appeal of the appellant was accepted and the O.P. Improvement Trust was directed to allot a plot of suitable size to the plaintiff within two months. The Improvement Trust Ludhiana had also filed second appeal No. 2699 of 1997 in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh titled as "Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Versus Kulwinder Singh son of Mukand Singh" and the same was dismissed by the Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 10 Hon'ble High Court. Against the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Civil Appeal was filed by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Civil Appeal No. 1487 of 2003 "Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Kulwinder Singh", which was also dismissed on 29.8.2006 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As such, as per the decision of the Civil Suit the complainants are entitled for the allotment of plot under the LDP category.
22. It was also held in two civil writ petitions No. 3687 and 3690 of 1994 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court titled as "Kapoor Singh Versus State of Punjab through Secretary to Government" as under:-
"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the stand taken by the Improvement Trust that the petitioners did not deposit the requisite amount of Rs. 500/- with their respective application is factually incorrect. The petitioners along with their respective replication have annexed a photo-copy of the draft of Rs. 500/- which they had deposited with the Improvement Trust on 21.1.1986. Petitioners made a number of representations and also appeared before the Chairman, Improvement Trust in response to public notice but at no stage the petitioners were told that they had not deposited the earnest money of Rs. 500/-. In the legal notice served through their counsel upon the Improvement Trust the petitioners had specifically made a mentioned of their depositing the earnest money of Rs. 500/- along with applications on 21.1.1986. They had also given particulars of the applications which they had made. The Improvement Trust never gave any reply to the legal notice. The action of O.P. No. 2 thus is not allotting two plots to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly when persons similarly situated have been allotted plots whereas petitioners in this regard have been discriminated.
6. The next question which arises for consideration is as to the size of plots to which the petitioners are entitled to. Although counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners are entitled for allotment of plots, measuring 500 sq. yards each, but in my view the petitioners under the rules, are entitled for allotment of plots measuring 400 sq. yards each. Clause (b)(ii) of rule 7 of 1975 Rules provides that a local displaced person may be allotted a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards on free-hold basis on reserve price calculated on the basis of formula given in the Annexure if the area of the land owned by him and acquired by the Trust is more than 500 sq. yards. If the area of the acquired land is less than 500 sq. yards, the local displaced persons shal be entitled to allotment of Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 11 plot which is nearest in size, next below the area of his land which has come under acquisition. For the purposes of allotment, the residential plots have been placed into four groups. In Group-IV, the nearest of the size of plot measuring 500 sq. yards is a plot measuring 400 sq. yards. Concededly, the petitioners owned two plots measuring 500 sq. yards and thus, under the rules they are entitled for allotment of plots measuring 400 sq. yards each.
7. Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed. O.P. No. 2 is directed to allot to the petitioners the plots, measuring 400 sq. yards each on reserve price calculated on the basis of formula prescribed under the 1975 Rules in any of the existing schemes if plots are available, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the plots are not available in the existing scheme, then the petitioners shall be allotted plots in the forthcoming scheme within a period of three months from the date the Scheme comes into operation.
There shall be not order as to costs.
Petition allowed."
23. It was also held in civil writ petition No. 7978 of 1998 titled as "Rajinder Kaur Versus State of Punjab and another" by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as follows:-
"A similar controversy, regarding allotment of a plot, to an owner, whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab 1994(3) RRR 53. This Court after noting the provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, came to a conclusion that the latter Rules cannot be made applicable retrospectively. It was observed as under:-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that 1983 Rules would be applicable to the Schemes, 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."
Again, a similar controversy came up before a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pritam Kaur Grewal and others v. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and others (CWP No. 2190 of 1984, Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 12 decided on 30.8.2006, in that case also, land was acquired by O.P. No. 2, to execute 2.2. hectares development scheme. Dispute was with regard to allotment of a plot to a local displaced person, who was co-sharer alongwith others, in the land acquired. O.P. No. 2 in that case also, put up a defence that as per provisions of 1983 Rules, all the co-sharers were eligible to get only one plot. The learned Single Bench, on taking note of the provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, observed that retrospective effect cannot be given to the latter Rules and that the case of the local displaced persons for allotment of plots would be covered under the 1975 Rules. It was opined as under:-
"Since the Rules of 1983 have not been given retrospective effect, therefore, this contention is not liable to be accepted, since as already discussed above, the case of the petitioners is covered under the Rules of 1975 and even if by virtue of proviso to rule 16 of the Rules 1983, the Rules of 1975 are repealed, even then this saving clause would not help the O.P. in any manner, nor it would stand in the right of the petitioners, which they have clearly acquired under the 1975 Rules and according to the Rule of 1975, the petitioners are entitled to separate plot as per the area of entitlement and it is not open to the O.P. to now contend that the petitioners being joint owners under the scheme, are entitled to only one plot particularly when new Rules of 1983 would not operate in the present case, as the acquisition had taken place in the year 1976."
This dispute was finally set at rest, by a Division Bench of this Court, in Ranjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No. 940 of 2007), decided on 23.7.2008. In that case, allotment of a plot to an owner, whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar in the year 1980, was in question. After analyzing provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, it was observed that the petitioner, whose land was acquired in the year 1980, cannot justifiably be excluded from the definition of the local displaced person and cannot be subjected to the embargo which has been created by 1983 Rules. Retrospective effect to 1983 Rules cannot be given. It was also stated thus:-
"The petitioner had applied in the year 1980 and the O.P. had slept over the allotment for a good period of 12 years and if in this interregnum some changes are effected in the policy or the rules, the same could not imply that the petitioner should be put to a disadvantageous position."
In the present case, situation is also not different. Land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1976. Amount of compensation was Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 13 disbursed to her along with others, as per her individual share, in the year 1980. On asking of O.P. No. 2, she moved an application to get allotted a plot and also deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- towards earnest money on 19.6.1981. O.P. No. 2 continued to put off her right, on one or the other technical objection, which was not justified.
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx In view of above, these writ petitions are allowed and directions are issued to O.P. No. 2 to allot a plot to the petitioner/petitioners in all these writ petitions, as per their entitlement, under the provisions of 1975 Rules against prevalent (present) reserved price. Plots of the size, as they may be entitled to get, as per those Rules, be sanctioned in their favour either, in the Scheme for which their land was acquired or in the adjoining Scheme, wherever the plot(s) may be available. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
4.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) Judge"
24. In another judgment titled as "Gurmukh Singh versus State of Punjab & Ors.", decided on 27.4.2009, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in paras No. 2, 21, 22, 23 observed as follows:-
"2. The petitioner - Gurmukh Singh, (since deceased and is represented by his legal heirs) seeks quashing of Memo dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure P-2) whereby his claim for allotment of a plot in the category of Local Displaced Persons, has been turned down. While questioning the vires of Rule 2(a) and 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Utilization of Allotment of Plots by the Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, the petitioner has also sought a direction to the Improvement Trust, Ropar to allot him a residential plot.
21. The plea taken by the O.P. Trust that the petitioner had applied on 11.8.1981 much after the 1975 Rules came into force and therefore, he can not claim eligibility under the 1964 Rules, has no legal or factual basis. It is not the case of the O.P. that they ever invited applications from the LDPs prior to 1981. The petitioner was given no opportunity prior to 1981 to seek allotment as LDP. So far as the application under the 1975 Rules is concerned, a Photostat copy thereof has been perused. The application is in a Prescribed Format, i.e. Form 'A'. Since by that time the Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 14 1975 Rules had come into force, there is a mention of these Rules in para No. 3 of the Prescribed Form 'A'. However, merely by applying in that prescribed format can not estop the petitioner as there can be no estoppel against law. If the petitioner is entitled for determination of his eligibility as LDP under the 1964 Rules, submission of application in a wrong format, does not take away his said legal vested right.
22. Learned counsel for the O.P. Trust has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Kanwaljit Singh & Ors., 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 145: 2004 LAR 5 where in their Lordships have held that exchange of correspondence between the Improvement Trust and the State Government can not be taken as a decision to allot plots. No such plea has been taken by the petitioner in the case in hand. Similarly, reliance placed by learned counsel for the O.P. Trust on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 6654, wherein their Lordships have held that no equitable relief is to be granted if a petitioner approaches the Court suppressing the material facts, is also not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has also referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and Anr. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 96: 2008(2) RAJ 82 : [2008) 4 SCC 695 on the question of delay and latches. That was a case where their Lordships have held that no writ petition challenging the acquisition of land after the award had been passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be entertained. In the present case, the petitioner has no where challenged the acquisition of his land. Likewise, the principle reiterated by their Lordships in U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. V. Jaswant Singh & Anr., 2007(1) SCT 224 : [2006) 11 SCC 464 that the Court would come to the rescue of a vigilant person only, is not an issue involved in the present case.
23. For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner's claim for allotment of a residential Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 15 plot as LDP has been rejected on the solitary ground that he does not fall within the definition of a LDP as defined in Rule 2(a) of the 1975 Rules, can not sustain and is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner's claim for allotment of the residential plot in the category of LDP shall be re-considered by treating him eligible as per the definition of LDP given in Rule 2(b) of the 1964 Rules, however, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions by him. It is further directed that in case no plot is available with the O.P. Trust in the Development Scheme in question, the claim of the petitioner shall be considered for allotment of a plot of equivalent size in some other Scheme."
25. The similar cases were decided by this Commission i.e. complaint No. 12 of 2008 titled as "Jangir Singh Versus State of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh" with 8 other complaints titled as Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2008(Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr.); Consumer Complaint No. 18 of 2008(Surjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr.); Consumer Complaint No. 19 of 2008(Kapoor Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr.); Consumer Complaint No. 23 of 2008(Gurcharan Kaur & others Vs. State of Punjab & anr.); Consumer Complaint No. 24 of 2008(Sunil Rai Vs. State of Punjab & anr.); Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2008(Madhu Bhushan Vs. State of Punjab & anr.); 8) Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2008(Anoop Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr.), Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 2008(Bhagwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & anr.) and were accepted by this Commission in which identical questions of law and facts were involved vide order dated 28.1.2009 in complaint No. 12 of 2008 titled as "Jangir Singh Vs. State of Punjab". The findings are reproduced:-
"9. ........... Therefore, in the present set of complaints 1964 Rules and 1975 Rules shall be applicable; 1983 rules shall not be applicable as none of the scheme was commenced and executed when the rules of 1983 rules were introduced.
13. In the present set of cases the land of all the complainants was acquired for execution of one or the other development scheme and it is not disputed by the Improvement Trust that the complainants were not the Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 16 owners or co-owners of the land acquired shorter than two years from the date of publication of section 36 Notification. Therefore, all the complainants are the local displaced persons."
26. We have also perused the orders dated 4.7.2008 of Sh. D.S. Bains, Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Deptt. of Local Govt.. In the said petition, General Power of Attorney holder of Sh. Gurdev Singh son of Banta Singh approached the Govt. of Punjab with a prayer that the Ludhiana Improvement Trust may be directed to allot a plot under the category of L.D.P. to the petitioner in lieu of 500 Sq. Yds of land acquired for Shaheed Bhagat Singh Development Scheme and the Ludhiana Improvement Trust was directed for the allotment of 400 Sq. Yds. plot to the petitioner. Similarly, "Sh. Kesar Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh and Sh. Hardeep Singh s/o Sh. Zora Singh also approached the Govt. of Punjab for the allotment of plots under the category of L.D.P." to the petitioners in lieu of 500 Sq. Yds. There land was acquired for Shaheed Bhagat Singh Development Scheme and it was ordered as under:-
"Since the facts and legal position of this case is similar to that of connected petition of Sh. Gurdev Singh S/o Sh. Banta Singh, therefore, to avoid repetition of facts, this petition is decided in the same manner, in which the connected petition of Sh. Gurdev Singh S/o Sh. Banta Singh has been disposed off."
27. It is the admitted case of the opposite party No. 2 that land measuring 2 Bigha 13 Biswas of the father of the complainants was acquired. As such, we are of the view that they are entitled for the allotment of plot measuring 500 sq. yards as per Rule No.7(ii) of the Improvement Trust, which is reproduced:-
"a Local Displaced persons may be allotted a plot upto the size of 500 Sq. Yards on free hold basis, on reserve price calculated on the basis of the formula in the annexure, if the area of the land owned by him and acquired by the Trust is more than 500 Sq. Yards. If the area of the acquired land is less then 500 Sq. Yards the local displaced person shall be entitled to allotment of plot which is nearest in size, next below the area of his land, which has come under acquisition."Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 17
28. In para No. 4 of preliminary objections, it is pleaded by the opposite party No. 2 that Plot No. 11-G in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana under the category of L.D.P. have already been allotted to the complainants, as such, they are not entitled for the second plot. But to prove this fact no evidence is produced by the opposite party No. 2. As such, we are of the view that the version of the opposite party No. 2 that plot No. 11-G was allotted is without any basis and the opposite party No. 2 has failed to prove its version that plot No. 11-G was allotted to the complainants and they are not entitled for the allotment of the second plot. Even the opposite party No. 2 has not produced the detailed affidavit of the official of the Improvement Trust to prove its version pleaded in the reply of the complaint.
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2009
29. In this case, there is no dispute that 1871 Sq. Yds. land of the complainant was acquired for the 550 acres development scheme known as "Bhain Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana" by O.P. No. 2 and as such, the complainant is also entitled for the allotment of plot of 500 Sq. Yds. as per the Rule No.7(ii) of the Improvement Trust(supra), which is reproduced above.
30. It is also the version of the opposite party No. 2 that plot No. 45-A (Annexure C-23) in the development Scheme known as "Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana" was allotted under the category of L.D.P., as such, he is not entitled for the allotment of another plot. The version of opposite party No. 2 is rebutted by the complainant in the replication which is filed by way of affidavit. The copy of allotment letter is filed by the complainant as Annexure C-23.
31. We have perused the letter Annexure C-23.
32. The plot No. 45-A was allotted to Sh. Bant Singh,Sh. Jit Singh, Sh. Hari Singh and Sh. Balbir Singh sons of Gulzar Singh but the name of the father of the complainant is Gurdit Singh and the name of his brothers is Amar Singh and Sadhu Singh, as such, the version of the opposite party No. 2 that the plot had already been allotted to the complainant is not correct. Otherwise, as per the Rules of 1975, which were applicable at the time of acquisition of the land of the Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2008 18 complainant, every owner, co-owner in joint khata was entitled for the allotment of separate plot and there was no such embargo in 1964 Rules or 1975 Rules that the co-owners are not entitled for the separate allotment of plot, if the land of the co-owner was acquired for the development of any scheme by the Improvement Trust i.e. O.P. No. 2. As such, every person, whose land was acquired, whether he was exclusive owner or co-owner in the land is entitled for the allotment of a plot.
33. There is no dispute that land of 1871 Sq. Yds. of the complainant was acquired as per Annexure C-6, as such, he is also entitled for the allotment of plot of 500 Sq. Yds. as per the condition No. 7(ii) of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1975. Conclusion
34. In view of the above discussion, both the complaints are accepted. The opposite party No. 2 - Improvement Trust, Ludhiana is directed:-
(i) to allot 500 Sq. Yds. plot to Atma Singh and Balram Singh sons of Bagga Singh in equal share within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order in the scheme for which the land of the father of the complainant was acquired. If the plot is not available in the said scheme, the plot may be allotted in the other scheme floated by the O.P. No. 2 of the same value.
(ii) to allot 500 Sq. Yds. plot to Bant Singh s/o Gurdit Singh complainant within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order in the scheme for which the land of the complainant was acquired. If the plot is not available in the said scheme, the plot may be allotted in the other scheme floated by the O.P. No. 2 of the same value.
No order as to costs.
35. Copy of the order be issued to the parties concerned and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
October 20 , 2011. (Amarpreet Sharma)
as Member