JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 09.12.2016 (Annexure P- 19) wherein the respondent-Ludhiana Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'Trust') came to the conclusion that the applicant was not the owner for two years at the time of the initiation of acquisition and, therefore, his request for the allotment of the plot on account of being local displaced person could not be considered and his representation was rejected.

2. Similarly, challenge is also raised to the order dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure P-20), which was a speaking order passed by respondent No.2-Chairman of the Trust. The same was in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.2699 of 2017 since legal notice dated 07.04.2016 was sought to be decided. Respondent No.2 had relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Baljit Singh v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust , 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 743, wherein it had been held that if the plot had been cancelled on account of mistake, the subsequent purchaser gets no right since the original allottee did not have any vested right. Resultantly, it was noticed that allotment in the name of Amar Singh, the original allottee was itself illegal and against the rules and, therefore, the request made for the issuance of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) by petitioner No.1-Jaideep Singh was without any cause.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince us on the strength of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed in Haryana Urban Development Authority & others v. Sandeep & others, 2012 (67) RCR (Civil) 691 to submit that the right of consideration should be seen on the date of Section 4 notification and the eligibility cannot be denied on account of the fact that the ownership was not for a period of two years which is required as per The Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by the IMPROVEMENT TRUST RULES .

4. Rule 2 (2) (a) and Rule 7(ii) of the then IMPROVEMENT TRUST RULES , 1975 which would be applicable reads as under:-

"2. These shall come into force at once.

(2) Definition-In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) '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.

xxxx

7. Reservation of plots and tenements

(i) xxxx

(ii) 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 the formula 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 persons shall be entitled to allotment of plot, which is nearest in size, next below the area of his land, which has come under acquisition."

5. The rules were replaced by The Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, whereby the definition was then provided under Rule 2 (d) but the eligibility criteria remained the same. The right of reservation was then provided under Rule 4, wherein the right to have a plot of 500 square yards was to be the entitlement of the person whose area of acquired land exceeds 5 acres.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner's right as such accrues from an allotment which was made to one Amar