Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1411-1412 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 38678-38679 OF 2012]

JAIDEV INDER SINGH                           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST                   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.   2. Pursuant  to  the  Notification  dated  18.12.1972 issued under Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust  Act, 1922,  which resulted  in an  Award dated 03.10.1973, around 63 acres of land belonging to the appellant  and  his  other  three  family  members  were acquired.   Subsequently,  by  a  Notification  dated 19.02.1973,  another  acquisition  at  a  different location was initiated, culiminating in Award dated 04.05.1974, acquiring 87 acres of land belonging to the  appellant  and  his  three  other  members  of  the family.  It appears that there was a challenge before the High Court of judicature of Punjab and Haryana on an acquisition, which led ultimately to the Judgment

Page 2

2

dated 27.09.2001 in Regular Second Appeal No. 2634 of 1993.  It is seen from the Judgment that a decision was taken by the Empowered Committee to exempt 10.76 acres  of  land  of  the  family  of  the  appellant  on condition  that the  same would  be maintained  as an orchard.   The  Second  Appeal  was  disposed  of, decreeing  that  10.76  acres  of  land  would  stand exempted from acquisition with a condition that in case the condition is violated, it would be open to the Government or the Trust to initiate fresh steps for acquisition.   

3.  Thereafter, the appellant and the other members of the family, who are the owners of the land covered by  the  second  acquisition,  approached  the  Trust seeking release of land to an extent of 500 sq. yards each in terms of the Rules aforementioned.  The Trust declined the request on two grounds, viz:- i) The  appellant  and  three  other  members  of  the family  had already  been allotted  250 sq.  yards of land.   ii) There  was  a  compromise  before  the  High  Court, pursuant to which 10.76 acres of land was exempted from acquisition and was released to the appellant.  

Page 3

3

4. The said order dated 24.03.2011 was challenged before  the  High  Court  in  CWP  No.  19034  of  2011, leading  to  the  impugned  Judgment  dated  12.10.2011, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.    

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made the following submissions :- i) The appellant and his three other members of the family had already been allotted 250 sq. yards each and, therefore, there was no justification in making a further claim.   ii) The acquisition is of the year 1974 and the claim for release of land in terms of the Rules was made in 2010.   iii)  Since the whole claims were settled by way of a compromise, the appellant and his three other members of  the family  cannot, under  law, make  any further claim; and finally;  iv) it is submitted that even assuming the respondent lost  on  all  the  above  points,  there  is  no justification in making the claim for 500 sq. yards of  land  since  the  appellant  and  his  three  other members of the family had limited their claim to 250 sq. yards in respect of the earlier acquisition.   

6. In terms of the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, it is not

Page 4

4

in dispute that four members of the family of the appellant had already been allotted 250 sq. yards of land  each.   This  is  in  respect  of  the  first acquisition.  There are two different acquisitions at two different locations.  One acquisition is pursuant to the Notification dated 18.12.1972 and the other dated  19.02.1973.   They  are  different  acquisitions and at different locations.  We have referred to the position  under  the  Rules  which  entitles  a  local displaced  person  to  claim  an  extent  upto  500  sq. yards  of  land  on  freehold  basis  at  reserve  price calculated on the basis of the formula annexed to the Rules.  The  Rules  will  have  to  be  understood purposively  and  interpreted  in  a  just  and  fair manner.  'Local displaced person' under the Rules is defined as follows :-

"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."

Page 5

5

Rule 7 (ii) deals with eligibility, which reads as follows :-

"A  local  displaced  person  may  be

allotted a plot upto the size of 500 sq.

yards on freehold 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  person

shall be entitled to allotment of plot

which is nearest in size, next below the

area of his land, which has come under

acquisition."   

7. It cannot be held that once the land owner is allotted lands as per the Rules as a local displaced person, thereafter even if his property is acquired at subsequent stage or at a different place, he will not  be a  local displaced  person.  Local displaced person  has to  be understood  with reference  to the acquisition concerned.   

8. We also do not find any basis for the contention that there was a compromise.  There is nothing on

Page 6

6

record to show that as a package, 10.76 acres of land for orchard was released, pursuant to which no other claim permissible in law would be available to the appellant and his three other members of the family.

9. There is also nothing on record to show that any reserve price was collected for the release of land. It is seen from the Judgment that the compromise, if at all it can be called so, was only with respect to the  challenge on  the acquisition  and there  was no issue on the claim for allotment under the Rules as a local displaced person.  

10. We also find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the claim is highly belated.  The challenge on the acquisition was  finally  concluded  before  the  High  Court  by Judgment dated 27.09.2001 and the appellant and the other owners of the land belonging to the family of the appellant were dispossessed only on 09.06.2008, as can be seen even from the counter affidavit filed on  behalf of  the respondent.   Thereafter  in 2010, they have made the claim for allotment of land under the Rules before the Trust.  Therefore, it cannot be held that the claim is highly belated and they should be non-suited on this ground.        

Page 7

7

11. However,  we  see  some  force  in  the  contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant and the other owners belonging to the family cannot make a claim for an extent of 500 sq. yards each.  The Rules indicate that the allotment is for a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards.   

12. Having been satisfied and having limited their claim  only  to  250  sq.  yards  each  in  respect  of acquisition  made  pursuant  to  Notification  dated 18.12.1972, in the peculiar facts and circumtances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be advanced if the claim is limited to the extent of 250 sq. yards each.   

13. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed with a direction to the respondent to allot a plot each to the extent of 250 sq. yards to the appellant and his three other members of the family, who are the owners of  the  acquired  land.   The  needful  shall  be  done within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Trust.   

14. In view of the application made by the appellant and three other members of the family in the year 2010,  needless to  say that  the reserve  price that would be fixed by the Trust would be in accordance

Page 8

8

with  the  price  as  fixed  on  the  date  of  the application.   

No costs.     .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; February 16, 2016.