Jaidev Inder Singh vs Amritsar Improvement Trust

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 Signature Not Verified the appellant and his three other members of the Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2016.02.23 17:34:13 IST Reason: 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 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. 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 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."

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 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.

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 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.

9

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVB

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 38678-38679/2012

JAIDEV INDER SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Respondent(s)

(with interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal)

Date : 16/02/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Nikhil Goel, Adv.

Mr. Marsook Bafaki, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. R. K. Rathore, Adv.

Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Adv. Mr. Vinay Arora, Adv. Mr. S. S. Rawat, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed

reportable Judgment.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)