JAIDEV INDER SINGH Vs. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1411-1412 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2016
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 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.
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 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."
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 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.
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 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.