National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Channa Ram on 19 September, 2001
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Two separate appeals have been filed by both the parties against the order of the State Commission.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T) issued a notice under Section 36 (equivalent of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act) of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 for acquisitition of certain lands. This was published in the Panjab Government Gazette on 19.9.71. Land of one Surrender Kumar was also covered in the lands notified by this notice. The lands were finally acquired on 2.5.80. A parallel activity was going on simultaneously in the sense that the above mentioned Surrender Kumar entered into an agreement to sell with the Respondent/Complainant Channa Ram on 1.1.70. The conveyance deed of the said land was executed on 16.2.72. Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T) under powers conferred on it by Section 74 of the J.I.T. Act, notified Rules called the "Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954'. These Rules aimed towards disposal of the land thus acquired. Claiming entitlement for allotment under these rules, the Respondent/Complainant applied for allotment a plot under the "Rules" but this request was refused twice by the State Government on the ground that Respondent/Complainant was not the owner of the land on the day of gazetted notification under Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. The State Government in 1992 again invited applications from eligible local displaced person for allotment of plots in the area acquired by J.I.T. Respondent/Complainant applied again in May, 1992 when the complainant was not getting any response on this application, he approached the State Commissioner to direct the State Government to dispose of the case favourable at an early date, on which State Commission passed an order on 16.2.96 directing the State Government to take an early decision on the application of the complainant made in May, 1992. The application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that this opportunity was offered to those displaced persons who could not apply earlier. Since the request of the Respondent/Complainant had already been considered and rejected, his case can not be considered de-novo.
3. It is in these circumstances, that the Respondent/Complainant approached the State Commissioner seeking appropriate reliefs. The State Commission after holding that the Respondent/Complaint is covered by the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954 and is a bonafide local displaced person directed the Appellant to allot the plot measuring 1 kanal plot either under the original scheme called the "43 acre Scheme" or at an alternative site which is equally developed, pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
4. Two separate appeals have been filed against this order of the State Commission. First Appeal 306/98 has been filed by the Appellant/Respondent, Jalandhar Improvement Trust for setting aside the order of the State Commission and another appeal has been filed by the Respondent/Complainant (F.A. 55/99) asking for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh. Both the appeals are barred by limitation to the extent of 51 and 233 days respectively. Applications for condonation of delay have been heard and we are inclined to hear the case on merits.
5. On behalf of the Appellant, it was argued by Shri P.N. Puri, counsel for the J.I.T. that Respondent/Complainant was not covered by the definition of "local displaced person" as given in Rule 2 (b) of J.I.T. Land Disposal Rules, 1954. Section 2(b) reads as follows:-
"Local Displaced Person":- means a person whose property has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of a scheme under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951".
6. Since the land in question was acquired by the J.I.T. under Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, the Respondent/Complainant is not covered under the Rules framed for disposal of land referred to above. For this he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 SCC 494. It was also argued by him that the Respondent/Complainant also cannot take advantage of the "Utilisation of land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975" or of "The Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots), Rules, 1983 - as both these rules confer eligibility for allotment of plots under these rules only to the person claiming plot who was in continuous possession for continuous two years before the Notification under the Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Since the notification appeared in Gazette dated 10.9.71, and admittedly Agreement to Sell was made on 1.1.70, the Respondent fails; it is also their case that Agreement to Sell does not confer any title, this accrues only on 16.2.72 i.e. after the execution of the conveyance deed which in any case deprives him of being an owner of the land on the date of notification, hence ineligible for allotment of a plot. In either of the conditions the Respondent/Complainant was not entitled to a plot. The decision of J.I.T. was right, State Commission erred in its appreciation, therefore, the order of that Commission is bad in law and on facts, hence need to be set aside.
7. On behalf of the Respondent, case was argued by Shri R.S. Kang, authorised representative of the Respondent/Complainant. his main plea is that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited and relied upon by the Appellant, was obtained by fraud by the appellant Trust hence rendered "Per In curian"/extraneous. For this he relies upon the status of "Local Displaced Person" under two different situations i.e. before the amendment to Rule 6(i) & (ii) of J.I.T. Land Disposal Rules and than "after" the amendment to these rules made in the year 1972. It is his case that two salient changes resulted from the amendment, firstly, that before the amendment, the Rules did not provide for allotment of plots in favour of "local displaced person" when dealing with a case under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 which was added by amendment and is reflected as such in the new Rules applicable from 1972, and secondly before the amendment while disposal of the lands under the Provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, it was to be disposed off in open sale and generally no concession was envisaged, but after the amendment, the same was to be disposed of at a "reserve price". He argued that the objective of Damaged Areas Act and Punjab Town Improvement Act were common and identical and are bound to receive a common construction. It is here that error seems to have crept in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respondent/Complainant further points out the wording used by them in (1999) SCC 494 as 'lands' where as the 1954 Rules refer to the word "Property". This makes a material difference for which he relies on AIR 1971 SC 2174. It is his contention that Rule 2 of 1954 Rules states that "In these Rules unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context" must be interpreted to mean that Damage Areas Act may not be read independently but need to be seen as part of the parent Act i.e. Punjab Town Improvement Act. Hence, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 499 SCC 419. while enunciating the difference between these two separate Acts, did not see the intent of making these two Acts which were common, leading them to the conclusion which is not in consonance with the conjunctive reading of these Acts. He also argued that Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Land Improvement Act is merely an intention, it is only tentaive and there is no finality or immutability about it. According to him first Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Land Improvement Act, 1922 was published on 10.7.71 and then on 17.9.71 and again on 24.9.71, State Government finalised the Scheme on 27.11.72 and gazetted it on 8.12.72. Date of acquisition was 27.11.72. Since the Sale Deed was executed in February, 1972, the Complainant was the owner of land on 27.11.72 i.e. date of acquisition by virtue of which (sic) was entitled to a plot under the Rules at a resolve price. The Appellant allotted plots to P.S. Patter and Inder Kaur who had purchased land much later and they have been discriminated against. It is admitted by the Appellants that all those who were owners of the land at the time of acquisition were considered for allotment of plots. Since the acquisition has been affected on the date of sanction of scheme i.e. 27.11.72 and since the Respondent/Complainant admittedly had become owner of the land on February, 1972 through conveyance of a Sale Deed, he automatically becomes entitled for a plot which the Courts themselves could give. He goes on to make allegation against the Trust and the counsel for the Appellants and wants the Commissioner to proceed against them.
8. We have perused the voluminous and valuable material brought on record especially by the authorised representative of the Respondent/Complainant and heard the arguments. Undisputed facts are that the originally the piece of land belonged to one, Surrender Kumar, who entered into an agreement to sell with the Respondent/Complainant on 1.1.70 which was notified on September, 1971, to be acquired by Jalandhar Improvement Trust under Section 36 of the punjab Land Improvement Act, 1922. Even though we are of the view that the title/ownership does not pass with the entering of an agreement to sell argued by the Respondent/Complainant, yet we are inclined to agree that notification Section 36, which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is only an intent to acquire. In the case the actual acquisition is to be deemed to be from the date of sanction of scheme by the State Government i.e. 27.11.72 but all this loses its relevance in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.I.T. v. Sampuran Singh (1999) SCC 494.
9. Key issue is whether the Complainant was entitled/eligible to be allotted a plot under the Rules or not?
10. In order to convince us, the Complainant raised two points:- Firstly, that the terms and objectives of the two Acts namely the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 and the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, is the same and should be read in a homogeneous manner and secondly that Section 6 of the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954 need to be distinguished in the context of pre and post-amendment, to these Rules, made in 1972.
11. Preamble of the Punjab Town Improvement Act of 1992 reads as follows:-
"Whereas it is expedient to make improvement and expansion of Towns in the Punjab....."whereas the Preamble of the Act of 1951, says:-
"An act to provide for the Development of Damaged Areas"
(d) "Damaged area" means an area which the State Government may, by notification, declare to be a damaged area and shall include the areas already notified under the East Punjab Damaged Areas Act, 1949.
12. It is true that 'scheme' made under Damaged Areas Act was to be implemented through the Improvement Trusts set up under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, yet to state that terms and objectives were the same, are not borne by the preambles of both the enactments; while the objective on one is to help develop "Town" to help improve the quality of life by providing an improved infrastructure, the objective of the Damaged Areas Act is to implement a 'scheme' through an agency-in this case an Improvement Trust for repairing the damages cause by whatever, to an upgraded infrastructure in a form as envisaged and approved by the State Government. Section (5) of the Damaged Areas Act clearly brings out the distinction. Section 5 of the Act of 1951, reads as follows:-
"The provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, shall apply to the extent they are applicable to all schemes framed and sanctioned under the Act, in so far as they do not conflict with or not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act."
13. A perusal of this Act (of 1951) clearly foresees this enactment as a self-contained and complete scheme of things except that the implementation Agency was creation of another statute of the State Government. We do not see any merit in this argument of the Respondent.
14. Second point relates to pre and post amendment status of Section (6) of the Jalandhar Development Land Disposal Rules, 1954.
15. In the pre-amendment stage, in a scheme started under Punjab Development Damaged Areas Act, land was to be offered to local displaced persons and then to the displaced persons from West Pakistan. Only after these requirements had been met, land was available for allotment to others, whereas the land comprised in a scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was to be disposed of under open sale to general public, generally with no price concession. In the post-amendment situation. Under both the schemes, first priority went to "local displaced person" with a small difference. In the scheme enumerated under Damaged Areas Act, first priority went to:
(i) Local displaced persons and to the claimants of the allottable acquired evacuee properties falling within the scheme area; whereas in a Scheme enumerated under Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, the first priority went to i) local displaced person.
It is important to note that the definition reproduced below of "local displaced person" remained unaffected by the amendment in the Rues. 'Local Displaced Person' means a person whose property has been acquired by the Trust for the extension of the scheme under the Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951.
16. It is not disputed in the instant case that the Complainant's land was acquired under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 whereas the Complainant is claiming relief under "local displaced person" category. It is clear from the definition of 'local displaced person' reproduced above that the relief could only be extended under this provision, if the land was acquired under the Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 which is not the case here. The legal position is that:-
17. Section 6 (1)(i) of 1954 Rules are not applicable in the instant case and Section 6 (2)(i) does not entitle him to any relief from us even though he could be said to be covered under these provisions. Hon'ble Supreme Court had an opportunity to go through cases having similar facts and held:
"It is not disputed in these cases, on the contrary it is admitted that the acquisitions made under the notifications referred to above are not made under the Damaged Areas Act. That being so, the definition as found in the 1954 Rules of "local displaced person" does not apply to the acquisitions concerned in these appeals. If that be so, none of the respondents could claim a preferential allotment as contemplated under Rule 4(2) {Sic. (ii)} of the 1954 Rules. Therefore, the very basis of preferential allotment is nonest in these cases. Assuming for argument;s sake that the 1975 or 1983 Rules are applicable to the acquisitions in question, even then a bare perusal of the statements in the chart referred to above shows none of these respondents qualifies to be a local displaced person even under those rules because they have not been owners of the lands acquired for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of the scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Improvement Act. Therefore, none of these respondents qualifies to be a local displaced person for the purpose of preferential allotment of plots by the Trust. Since, it is the respondents who claim preferential allotment under the rules, the onus is on them to establish the fact that they do fall within the definition of "local displaced person" so as to entitle them to the benefit of preferential allotment. In our view the respondent-plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden and the courts below have erred in presuming that the respondents were entitled to preferential allotment reserved for the category of local displaced person. As a matter of fact, it seems that the courts below have proceeded on the basis that all persons whose lands have been acquired for the execution of any scheme by the Trust, automatically become local displaced persons. This view of the courts below is unsustainable. The benefit of reservation made for local displaced person will be available only to such of those persons who fulfil the requirements of the definition of "local displaced person" under the relevant rules applicable to the acquisition of their property".
18. It is clear that the Complainant in the instant case does not meet the definition of 'local displaced person' under Section 2(b) read with Section 6(2)(1) of the Jallandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules 1954 as this land in question was acquired under Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 whereas priority in allotment of lands is available to 'local displaced persons' only if the land is acquired under the Damaged Areas Act 1951. In this case, it does not help the Respondent. We are unable to sustain the contention of the Respondent that a fraud has been committed by the Appellant by not bringing the full facts resulting from the pre and post-amendment status of the individual under Rule 6 of the 1954 Rules. We are also unable to sustain the contention of the Respondent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not make a distinction between "land" and "property" or for that matter whether the 1954 rules were made under Section 73 or 74 of the punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Nothing much turns on this. Law laid is that for getting a relief or to obtain a benefit one has to be eligible under the law and rules made thereof. Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court become the law of land and are binding on us. Even allegation as serious as fraud perpetrated by the appellant before the Supreme Court, to which we do not subscribe, cannot make us deviate from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on point of law as laid by them.
"The allotment of plots by the Trust is controlled by the statutory rules:-
Any allotment contrary to those rules will be against the law. Since the allotment made in favour of some of the respondents was based on wrong application of the reservation made for "local displaced person" those allotments were contrary to Law. Hence the principle of promissory/equitable estoppel cannot be invoked to protect such illegal allotments.
19. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, which is fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court, we are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission and set it aside. Appeal No. 306/98 is allowed and Appeal No. 55/99 is dismissed.
20. We are fully conscious of the fact that the State Commission while passing the order in May, 1998 did not have the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in J.I.T. v. Sampuran Singh (1999) SCC 499. We would also like to appreciate the great work done by the authorised representative of the Respondent/Complainant in bringing crucial material, documents, statutes and notifications and in assisting the court to the full extent.
21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case no order on cost.