Back
1983 Supreme(P&H) 270
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and Prem Chand Jain JJ.
Jagdish Rai Chawla
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1982,
Decided On : MAY 18, 1983
A local displaced person is entitled to the allotment of a plot in other scheme of the Improvement Trust to whom a plot could not be given by the Trust in a Scheme, as a result of which, he has been displaced.
Headnote:
PUNJAB TOWN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1922 - SECTION 72-E - AMRITSARE IMPROVEMENT TRUST LAND DISPOSAL RULES, 1951 - RULE 6(1)(III) - ALLOTMENT OF PLOT TO LOCAL DISPLACED PERSON - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, and he was allotted a plot in a different scheme as a Local Displaced Person. The Director, Local Government, annulled the allotment, and the petitioner challenged the legality of this action.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allotment of a plot to the petitioner in a different scheme was illegal as it was contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1)(iii) of the Amritsar Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1951. The court also held that the Director, Local Government, was not required to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before annulling the allotment.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment of a plot to the petitioner in a different scheme was valid. 2. Whether the Director, Local Government, was required to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before annulling the allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 6(1)(iii) of the Amritsar Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1951 provides that a local displaced person is entitled to the allotment of a plot in other scheme of the Improvement Trust to whom a plot could not be given by the Trust in a Scheme, as a result of which, he has been displaced. 2. The resolution of the Trust allotting land to the petitioner was wholly illegal being contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 (1) (ii) read with R.6 (1) (iii) and that the same was rightly annulled by the Director, Local Government, Punjab, in exercise of his powers under Section 72-E, of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the allotment of the plot to the petitioner was illegal and that the Director, Local Government, was not required to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before annulling the allotment.
PREM CHAND JAIN, J.
1. This Judgment off ours would dispose of this petition and the other connected petitions - Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3652 to 3660, 4136, 4710, 5091, 5673 of 1982, 117, 136 and 194 of 1993, as common question of law and fact arises in these petitions.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of this case may be noticed:-
3. The petitioner owned 1/6th share in the residential land in Khasra No. 857, Khatauni No.1157, measuring 6 Kanals, situated in village Gumtala within the urban area of Amritsar, known as 109 Urban Tehsil Amaritsar. Vide Punjab Government Notification No. 117 (41) 3CI-73/4951 dated 19th February, 1973, some land including the petitioner s land was acquired by the State of Punjab for the Improvement Trust. The possession of the land was taken by the Improvement Trust an 14th May, 1980; after the announcement of the award on 4th May, 1974. The Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 1200.00 in favour of the petitioner, which was accepted by him under protest. It is further averred that after the acquisition of the land, an advertisement appeared in the daily Tribune dated 17th July, 1979, that a person whose land has been acquired by the Improvement Trust should make an application to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar, for the allotments of plots in lieu of the acquired land. In pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner made an application before the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar, for the allotment of plot in the Ajnala Road Development Scheme. Amritsar. On the said application, Plot No. A/103, measuring 250 Sq. yards was allotted by the Improvement Trust vide its Resolutions Nos. 132 and 133 dated 19th February, 1982 and 24th February, 1982, respectively. This allotment as a Local Displaced Person was made under the Amritsar Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Vide letter No. ATT/AO/ 2017 dated 25th February, 1982, the petitioner was required to deposit 1/4th price of the plot within 30 days. In pursuance of this demand notice the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4250.00 on 26th February 1992, as 1/4th price of the plot in question. The other conditions which were imposed were also fulfilled by the petitioner. The petitioner after the allotment, completed all the formalities. He submitted a plan for sanction vide application dated 15th March, 1982, according to which, he proposed to build on the plot. The said plan was sanctioned on 17th March, 1982.
4. At this stage, it may be pointed out that the petitioner was to be allotted land as a Local Displaced Person in the Ajnala Road Expansion Scheme; but he was allotted land as a Local Displaced Person in Ajnala Road Development Scheme, vide Resolution No, 138 to which reference has been made earlier. When the matter came to the notice of the Punjab Government, it found that allotment of plots to Local Displaced Persons belonging to other Schemes could not be made in a different Scheme and that any allotment mode vide Resolution No, 138 was contrary to the provisions of R. 6 (1) (iii) of the Rules. Consequently, in exercise of its powers under S.72-E (2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Director, Local Government, Punjab, vide its order dated 1st May, 1982, annulled the resolution referred to above. A copy of the order is attached with the petition as Annexure P-13. It is this action of the Government, the legality of which has been challenged through this petition.
5. The petition came up for motion hearing on 3oth July, 1982, when notice of motion was issued to the respondents. In response to the notice of motion, the respondendents have put in appearance and have contested the petition. Separate written statements, one on behalf of respondents. Nos. 1 and 2 and the other on behalf of respondent No. 3 have been filed, in which the material allegations made in the petition, have been con
