##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

RSA-1568-1996 (O&M)

AMAR CHAND (NOW DECEASED)

THROUGH HIS LRS

. . . .APPELLANT

Vs.

JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST,

MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR . . . . RESPONDENT

****

Reserved on:21.01.2026

Pronounced on: 04.02.2026

Pronounced Full/partially: Fully

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Varun Parkash, Advocate for appellant No.1 (I to v, vii)

Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Background : The plaintiff of the case (now represented through

his legal representatives) has approached this Court by way of the present

Regular Second Appeal, assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by the

Courts below. The suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against

the defendant–Jalandhar Improvement Trust (now respondent and

hereinafter referred to as “JIT”) was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide

judgment dated 14.02.1994. The appeal preferred thereagainst was also

dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated

15.04.1996, thereby affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2. To avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred to as per their

status before the trial Court. The trial Court record was requisitioned and has

been perused.

1 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 08:03:28 :::

RSA-1568-1996 2026:PHHC:015933

3.1 Plaintiff’s Case : The case set up by the plaintiff was that he was

the owner of land measuring 14 kanal 19 marla, being ½ share out of the

total land measuring 29 kanal 9 marla, as detailed in the headnote of the

plaint, situated near Vasant Bihar, Model Town, Jalandhar (within municipal

limits). The said land was purchased by the plaintiff jointly with his brother

Darshan Lal in equal shares vide sale deed dated 13.06.1968.

3.2 It was not in dispute that the defendant–JIT framed and

executed a development scheme known as “Green Model Town, Jalandhar”

(also referred to as 143.74 Acres Development Scheme), under which land

belonging to various landowners, including that of the plaintiff, was acquired

for development of a residential colony. Consequent upon such acquisition,

the plaintiff claimed to have become a “local displaced person” within the

meaning of the Punjab Town Improvement Act and the Rules framed

thereunder.

3.3 According to the plaintiff, under the applicable statutory Rules, a

local displaced person was entitled to allotment of a residential plot

measuring one kanal in the development scheme. His specific grievance was

that although his co-sharer and brother Darshan Lal, whose land was

acquired under the same scheme, had been allotted a plot measuring one

kanal under the category of local displaced person, the plaintiff was denied

similar treatment. Alleging discrimination, the plaintiff submitted a request

letter dated 01.06.1990 and also served a legal notice under Section 98 of

the Punjab Town Improvement Act. As no relief was granted by JIT, the

plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction

directing the defendant to allot him a residential plot measuring one kanal in

the said development scheme in lieu of his acquired land.

4.1 Defendant’s Stand : The defendant–JIT contested the suit by

raising preliminary objections, the principal objection being that the suit was

barred by limitation. It was pleaded that the suit ought to have been filed

within six months from the date of acquisition and taking over of possession.

Since possession of the acquired land had admittedly been taken on

Page 2 of 10

2 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 08:03:29 :::

RSA-1568-1996 2026:PHHC:015933

26.05.1980 and the suit was instituted in October 1991, it was contended

that the same was hopelessly time-barred.

4.2 On merits, JIT admitted the acquisition of the land jointly owned

by the plaintiff and Darshan Lal under the 143.74 Acres Development

Scheme. However, the claim for allotment of a plot was resisted on the

ground that the land was jointly held, that the