Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Harpreet Singh Brar, JJ.
Mohinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 17022 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Local Displaced Person - Allotment of Plot - Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, Section 42; Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 - The court discussed the applicability of the 1975 Rules and the 1983 Rules in determining the entitlement of the petitioner for allotment of a plot as a Local Displaced Person. It highlighted the discriminatory and arbitrary actions of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, and emphasized the need for fairness and equality in state actions, as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as a legal representative of the landowner whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, sought allotment of a plot as a 'Local Displaced Person' under the 1975 Rules. The petitioner's claim was rejected, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the actions of the Improvement Trust to be discriminatory, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It held that the petitioner was entitled to allotment of a plot under the 1975 Rules and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the 1975 Rules and the 1983 Rules, the rejection of the petitioner's claim, and the discriminatory actions of the Improvement Trust.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fairness and equality in state actions, as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It held that the petitioner's case had to be determined under the 1975 Rules and set aside the impugned order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The petitioner was entitled to allotment of a plot in line with previous judgments, and the Improvement Trust was directed to take necessary action within three months.
JUDGMENT
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 05.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) vide which the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot as 'Local Displaced Person' (LDP) has been rejected. The petitioner has further sought issuance of a direction to Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to allot a plot to which she is entitled to under the Rules.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Late Sh. Attar Singh, who happened to be the grandfather-in-law of the petitioner, was the owner of land measuring 12 K-3M being 1/3 share of the land, comprised of khasra No. 474/591, 482/601, 490/614 and killa No. 64//9/1, 10/2, 11/2, 12, in village Sunet. This land was acquired vide a Notification issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act' for short) on 28.06.1979. The award was passed, and the land was acquired for 475 Acre Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Development Scheme. Being eligible for allotment of a plot, Sh. Attar Singh applied for the same on 12.05.1982 vide application (Annexure P-1). Above said Attar Singh bequeathed his entire estate in favour of his two daughters-in-law i.e. the petitioner and Beant Kaur, vide Will dated 12.10.1984. Sh. Attar Singh died in the year 1985. Being legal representatives of Sh. Attar Singh, the petitioner along with Beant Kaur are entitled for allotment of a plot under 'Local Displaced Person' category under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Rules' for short) which were prevailing at the time of acquisition of land in 1979. Despite being eligible as the legal representative of Sh. Attar Singh, the plot was not allotted to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court with a prayer to direct the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to consider her case and decide on her representation. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.03.2016 passed in CWP No. 5326 of 2016 (Annexure P-2), directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2014. The Improvement Trust rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order dated 05.04.2017 (Annexure P-3). Now the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 05.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) and for allotment of a plot as 'Local Displaced Person'.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.2 has rejected the case of the petitioner in a discriminatory manner and, she has claimed parity with the similarly situated 'Local Displaced Person' in the same scheme by placing reliance on Annexures P-5 to P-7. Similarly, Pritam Kaur Grewal and others approached this Court for allotment of a plot being 'Local Displaced Person' in accordance with the provisions of the 1975 Rules. The above writ petition filed by Pritam Kaur Grewal and others was allowed vide order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed in CWP No. 2190 of 1984.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the case of the petitioner had been rejected whereas the claim of Buta Singh and Jagtar Singh, who had applied under the LDP category and who had also not deposited the earnest money with the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, had been accepted vide orders dated 17.08.2015 (Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively). In the speaking order referred to above, passed by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (respondent No.2), it had been specifically held that said Buta Singh and Jagtar Singh were eligible for allotment and they were directed to deposit the earnest money. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no rules, instructions or statutory provisions which require a 'Local Displaced Person' to deposit the earnest money before seeking allotment of plot. Reliance is also made on Annexures P-11 to P-25 wher
Court upheld the petitioner's rights based on principles of natural justice and promissory estoppel, quashing arbitrary administrative decisions regarding plot allotment.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving actual land allotment and possession in cases of rehabilitation schemes and the validity of administrative orders changing land use.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
