IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 14.10.2025 Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Chairman and another ...... Petitioners versus Balbir Kumar and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Parminder Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 11.08.2025 passed the following order:-

“Land of Decree Holder was acquired vide notification dated 26.07.1974. They are Local Displaced Persons and are entitled for allotment of plot. The plaintiff applied for allotment of plot on 26.08.1985. The said application was rejected. The same led to filing of the present suit which was finally decreed by the Lower Appellate Court on 05.04.2010. A finding has been recorded by the Appellate Court that no advertisement as required under Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land & Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, was issued inviting applications for allotment of plots to the local displaced persons. It has been contended that even though the Appellate Court while decreeing the suit held that claim of the plaintiffs has to be dealt with in accordance with 1964 Rules but there is no direction with respect to the rate at which the allotments has to be made. Reliance is being placed upon Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr. 2018(3) PLR 733 as per which counsel for the petitioners contends that the price has to be as per the date of allotment i.e. the current price.

The Executing Court vide impugned order has ordered that the decree holder be charged rate as prevalent in the year 1982 and has ordered that allotment of 500 square yards plots be made at a consolidated price of Rs.9,00,000/- i.e. @Rs.98/-

per square yard.

Having heard counsel for the petitioners and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that the ratio of law laid down in Jagtar Singh's case supra is not applicable, wherein the Court observed as under :-

[13] There is no quarrel that the petitioners have been charged the allotment price as per the revised/re-fixed reserve sale price which was prevalent at the time of allotment of plots. They cannot seek advantage of reserve sale price of the year 2013 only because they chose to approach this Court in the year 2013. In fact, there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners in asserting their claim. It is for this reason that this Court declined to issue a positive mandamus for allotment of plots at the 'current' allotment price though left it open to the Trust to consider their claim.”

The facts and circumstances leading to the said case are entirely different from the present case. In the present case, admittedly at the time the land was acquired and was put for disposal, the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964 were in vogue. Rule 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 provide as under :-

5. (i) The Trust shall there after fix the free-hold price or premium and/or ground rent at the market rates for all land available for disposal. Such fixation shall be made either by plot or for a group of plot or for an area as a whole.

(ii) The trust shall similarly fix a concessional price at which land comprised in a scheme will be sold to local displaced person. The concessional price shall not be less the cost price of the land to the Trust i.e. the estimated cost of the acquisition of the land plus development charges etc. Not more than one plot of land when demarcated into plots shall be sold to a local displaced person. The size of the plot to be allocated shall be in keeping with the quantum of land acquired and as for as possible, he will be accommodated near his own land. Only after the claims, if any, of this category of persons have been met, the land shall be sold to others.

6. The chairman shall ask the Lands Officer to issue a public notice in an appropriate form in the manner prescribed by ru