SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 186

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Jaidev Inder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Amritsar Improvement Trust – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1411-1412 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 38678-38679 of 2012]
Decided on : 16-02-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
If lands of the same owner are acquired in more than once instance, he will be entitled to allotment of land as displaced person for each acquisition.
When the appellants were dispossessed in 2008 and they made claim for allotment of land in 2010, the claim cannot be said to be highly belated.

Headnote:(a) Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 – Rule 7(ii) – Allotment of land to local displaced person – Status of local displaced person is acquisition specific – Each acquisition entitles an owner to allotment of land as local displaced person – If lands of the same owner are acquired in more than once instance, he will be entitled to allotment of land as displaced person for each acquisition. (Para 7)

       (b) Administration of justice – Delays and laches – Appellants dispossessed in 2008 – Making claim for allotment of land in 2010 – Claim cannot be said to be highly belated. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       Around 63 acres of land belonging to the appellant and his other three family members were acquired. Subsequently in another acquisition 87 acres of land belonging to the appellant and his three other members of the family was acquired.

       The High Court in second appeal decreed that 10.76 acres of land would stand exempted from acquisition with a condition that it will be maintained as orchard and in case the condition is violated, it would be open to the Government or the Trust to initiate fresh steps for acquisition.

       Thereafter, the appellant and the other members of the family, owners of the land covered by the second acquisition approached the Trust seeking release of land to an extent of 500 sq. yards each in terms of the Rules aforementioned. The Trust declined the request.

       High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the same.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellants are entitled to allotment of 250 sq. yards each.

       Result:

       Appeal partly allowed.

       

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Pursuant to the Notification dated 18.12.1972 issued under Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, which resulted in an Award dated 03.10.1973, around 63 acres of land belonging to the appellant and his other three family members were acquired. Subsequently, by a Notification dated 19.02.1973, another acquisition at a different location was initiated, culiminating in Award dated 04.05.1974, acquiring 87 acres of land belonging to the appellant and his three other members of the family. It appears that there was a challenge before the High Court of judicature of Punjab and Haryana on an acquisition, which led ultimately to the Judgment dated 27.09.2001 in Regular Second Appeal No. 2634 of 1993. It is seen from the Judgment that a decision was taken by the Empowered Committee to exempt 10.76 acres of land of the family of the appellant on condition that the same would be maintained as an orchard. The Second Appeal was disposed of, decreeing that 10.76 acres of land would stand exempted from acquisition with a condition that in case the condition is violated, it would be open to the Government or the Trust to initiate fresh steps for acquisition.

3. Thereafter, the appellant and the other members of the family, who are the owners of the land covered by the second acquisition, approached the Trust seeking release of land to an extent of 500 sq. yards each in terms of the Rules aforementioned. The Trust declined the request on two grounds, viz:-

i) The appellant and three other members of the family had already been allotted 250 sq. yards of land.

ii) There was a compromise before the High Court, pursuant to which 10.76 acres of land was exempted from acquisition and was released to the appellant.

4. The said order dated 24.03.2011 was challenged before the High Court in CWP No. 19034 of 2011, leading to the impugned Judgment dated 12.10.2011, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made the following submissions :

i) The appellant and his three other members of the family had already been allotted 250 sq. yards each and, therefore, there was no justification in making a further claim.

ii) The acquisition is of the year 1974 and the claim for release of land in terms of the Rules was made in 2010.

iii) Since the whole claims were settled by way of a compromise, the appellant and his three other members of the family cannot, under law, make any further claim; and finally;

iv) it is submitted that even assuming the respondent lost on all the above points, there is no justification in making the claim for 500 sq. yards of land since the appellant and his three other members of the family had limited their claim to 250 sq. yards in respect of the earlier acquisition.

6. In terms of the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, it is not in dispute that four members of the family of the appellant had already been allotted 250 sq. yards of land each. This is in respect of the first acquisition. There are two different acquisitions at two different locations. One acquisition is pursuant to the Notification dated 18.12.1972 and the other dated 19.02.1973. They are different acquisitions and at different locations. We have referred to the position under the Rules which entitles a local displaced person to claim an extent upto 500 sq. yards of land on freehold basis at reserve price calculated on the basis of the formula annexed to the Rules. The Rules will have to be understood purposively and interpreted in a just and fair manner. 'Local displaced person' under the Rules is defined as follows :-

"Local displaced person means 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 two years immediately before the first publication of the Scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922."

Rule










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top