Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapoor Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Anr. on 31 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)111PLR295
ORDER V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3687 and 3690 of 1994 as common question of law and facts is involved therein.
2. In both these writ petitions, petitioners were owners in possession of two plots each measuring 500 sq. yards which they had purchased for the construction of residential houses. Ludhiana Improvement Trust Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as Improvement Trust) framed a scheme namely, Model Town Extension Part II Development Scheme of 400 acres and for this purpose along with the land of other persons the land of the petitioners was acquired and an award in this respect made on 5.8.1977. On a reference made by the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana (in short the Tribunal) vide its award dated 2.8.1988 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard for their acquired land. In exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (xiii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, the State of Punjab made rules known as Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, for the guidance of the Improvement Trusts in Punjab for carrying out purposes of the said Act. As per 1975 Rules, local displaced persons are entitled to be allotted plots in lieu of their land acquired. As the petitioners were entitled for allotment of a plot each, they made an application with the Improvement Trust for allotment of plots but no action was taken on their application. Petitioners approached the Secretary, Local Self Government, Punjab, Chandigarh with a request to instruct the Improvement Trust to allot a plot each to them. Petitioners have averred that when they visited the office of Chairman, Improvement Trust, they were asked to deposit Rs. 500/- each as earnest money which was so deposited by petitioners by way of bank drafts drawn on Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch, payable at Ludhiana Branch. Petitioners also submitted affidavits and indemnity-bonds but the Improvement Trust did not take any action. Petitioners thereafter served legal notice dated 21.4.1992 which was duly received by the Improvement Trust. On 17.11.1992 the Improvement Trust got published public notice in the Daily Tribune whereby the Improvement Trust notified for the information of those local displaced persons whose land had been acquired that the Improvement Trust has decided to scrutinize the applications of such local displaced persons who had deposited earnest money and whose applications are pending with the Improvement Trust. Accordingly, such persons were asked to appear before the Chairman of the Improvement Trust within 15 days of publication of the notice. Petitioners have averred that in response to notice, they appeared in person in the office of Chairman, Improvement Trust but still no action has been taken on their applications. Petitioners have further averred that the persons whose land was acquired along with the land of the petitioners have been able to get plots in their favour. A copy of one of such allotment letters has been attached by the petitioners as Annexure P-8 to the writ petitions whereby a plot has been allotted in favour of one Jagdish Singh son of Kishan Singh.
3. In response to notice of the writ petition respondent No. 2 i.e. Improvement Trust has filed reply and has taken preliminary objection that the petitioners have not deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 500/- as earnest money and therefore, they are not entitled for allotment of plots as local displaced persons. Respondent No. 2 has admitted that a public notice was given in the Daily Tribune in response to which petitioners gave affidavits and indemnity bonds, but it has been denied that they are eligible for allotment of plots being local displaced persons as they have failed to deposit requisite amount of Rs. 500/- as earnest money. In answer to the allegation of the petitioners that one Jagdish Singh son of Kishan Singh who is similarly situated like the petitioners has been allotted plot, the respondent No. 2 in its written statement has not denied this assertion, but has stated that in fact all eligible persons for the allotment of plots as local displaced persons were allotted plots by the Improvement Trust.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners though are entitled for allotment of plots in lieu of the land acquired by Improvement Trust according to the rules, yet the respondents are not allotting plots for untenable reasons. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust has not disputed the entitlement of the petitioners but contended that petitioners did not deposit the requisite amount of Rs. 500/- with their respective application and therefore, they are not entitled for allotment of plots as local displaced persons.
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 photocopy 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 mention 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 respondent No. 2 thus in 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 the 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 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. For the purpose of allotment, the residential plots have been placed into four groups. In Group-IV, the nearest to 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. Respondent 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.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.