IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.200 of 2007 Date of decision: 5.8.2009 Ludhiana Improvement Trust. -----Appellant Vs. Smt. Pritam Kaur & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana against judgment of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 4 and directing the appellant to allot plots measuring 500 sq. yards to each of the four respondents under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (for short, “the 1975 Rules”). LPA No.200 of 2007 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are legal heirs of S. Gurcharan Singh being widow and daughters. The appellant is a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. It framed a development Scheme under the provisions of the said Act opposite the Khalsa College for Women on Sheep Shank Road, Ludhiana by virtue of which land of the respondents was acquired. In the area affected by the Scheme, S. Gurcharan Singh had 1/3rd share. Award was announced on 9.11.1976, determining compensation. Two applications were filed, one by Mrs. Kiran Ajitpal Singh, respondent No.4, dated 23.2.1978 (Annexure P-2) and another by respondents No.1 to 4 dated 11.11.1982 (Annexure P-3), seeking allotment of a plots in accordance with the 1975 Rules. The writ petitioners, thereafter, served Legal Notice and then filed writ petition in this Court on 20.10.1984. It was pleaded that in December, 1983, a new set of rules known as Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (for short, “the 1983 Rules”) was introduced which adversely affected entitlement of the writ petitioners, but the same did not apply to the case of the writ petitioners. 3. The appellant contested the writ petition, mainly on the ground that the area of 1667 Sq. Yards of land was exempted from the scheme and, thus, the writ petitioners were not ‘displaced’ and not entitled to be allotted plots. 2 LPA No.200 of 2007 4. Learned Single Judge considered the matter with reference to following questions:- i) Whether leaving out 1667 Sq. Yards of land in favour of the writ petitioners was a ground to deny them plots meant for the displaced persons. ii) Whether the 1975 Rules were applicable or the 1983 Rules? iii) Whether all the four writ petitioners were entitled for separate plots or one plot? iv) Whether delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court almost eight years after the award could be a ground to deny plots to them. 5. The above questions were answered in favour of the writ petitioners. It was held that leaving out 1667 sq. yards of land did not affect their right to claim plots meant for displaced persons. The writ petitioners were covered by the definition of ‘local displaced person’. The 1983 Rules not being retrospective, provision for restricting the eligibility for allotment of plot to one person for the joint holders, could not be applied. No prejudice was caused by the delay, as the area of 2000 square yards remained unutilized and the appellant could be compensated by requiring the writ petitioners to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum from the award till the filing of the writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 LPA No.200 of 2007 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Scheme for rehabilitation of displaced persons is a welfare scheme and is meant for the persons who were displaced in the real sense of the term. In para 5 of the reply to the writ petition, it was stated that land measuring 1667 square yards being constructed house of the writ petitioners was exempted from the scheme and on that account, the petitioners could not be treated as displaced persons for allotment of plots to them. The area left in their possession was more than the area which may have been allotted to them as displaced persons. Similar averment was made in reply to the amended writ petition in para 5 of the preliminary objections. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the writ petitioners were technically treated as displaced persons, the appellant could certainly take into account the fact that they already had area of 1667 square yards of land, on which, a house had been constructed which had been left out of acquisition to ameliorate their hardship. The respondents being heirs of S. Gurcharan Singh, were joint owners of the acquired property and had no separate right for allotment of plots. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and another v. Dila Ram and others (2005) 2 SCC 122. It is further submitted that delay of eight years in approaching this Court should have been held to be a bar for 4 LPA No.200 of 2007 entertaining the writ petition. The said delay could not have been ignored merely by making a provision for interest. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners supported the impugned judgment and submitted that learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the writ petitioners were eligible and entitled to allotment of plot. She relies on DB judgment of this Court in Smt. Sushma Palta and others v. State of Punjab and others 2006(3) PLR 861 in support of the submission that a rule had to be given literal interpretation. Reliance has also been placed on Single Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab and another 1994 PLJ 354 to submit that scheme prior to the 1983 Rules was applicable as the writ petitioners had acquired a right under the said scheme prior to enforcement of 1983 Rules. 9. Main question for consideration is whether having regard to the fact that area measuring 1667 square yards covered by the house of the writ petitioners having been allowed to be retained by them, the appellant could decline to allot plots to them. 10. In State of UP v. Pishta Devi , (1986) 4 SCC 251, it was observed that when as a result of acquisition of land for providing residential accommodation to people, a person is rendered homeless, such person should be eligible for relief at par with provision contained in section 21(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. In New Reviera Coop Housing Society 5 LPA No.200 of 2007 v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 1 SCC 731, para 9, it was observed that the issue of alternative sites had to be considered in accordance a scheme but in absence thereof, the acquisition could not be held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. A scheme of allotment of alternative sites to rehabilitate persons displaced by acquisition has a purpose and provisions of any such scheme have to be interpreted to advance such purpose. The scheme covered by the 1975 rules envisages allotment of a plot to a local displaced person. ‘Local displaced person’ as defined under Rule 2(a) is as under:- “ ‘Local displaced persons’ 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 5 provides that if a person has obtained any plot from the Government, he could not be allotted plot as displaced person. Rule 7(ii) is as under:- “A local displaced person may be allotted a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards, on free hold 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. 6 LPA No.200 of 2007 If the area of the acquired land is less than 500 sq. yards, the local displaced persons shall be entitled to allotment of plot, which is nearest in size, next below the area of his land, which has come under acquisition.” 12. The above rules cannot be read in isolation from the background of acquisition. Where during the proceedings for acquisition, built up area of a house is left out from acquisition so that the affected party is not displaced, such a fact will be relevant for consideration while dealing with the issue of allotment of a plot to a displaced person. Spirit of the scheme under the 1975 rules is to rehabilitate persons who are displaced by acquisition. The fact that definition of displaced person covered every owner of the property whose land was acquired could not be conclusive of entitlement. The obligation to allot is not absolute. Rule 5 disentitles a person to allotment if he obtains a plot from the Government. Rule 7(ii) uses the expression “may be allotted” which implies that power is to be exercised having regard to the objective of the scheme. Thus, it cannot be held that the fact that 1667 square yards land was left out from acquisition was not a relevant fact. The respondents belonged to the same family and being heirs of S. Gurcharan Singh, had joint holding. It could not be held that the accommodation already retained by them was irrelevant and the appellant had to mechanically allot plots to the respondents merely because they 7 LPA No.200 of 2007 were eligible or affected by the development scheme. If the Improvement Trust has declined to allot a plot on that consideration, the said decision could not be interfered with. 13. There is also merit in the submission that the writ petition having been filed after about eight years, the respondents should have been required to explain the delay. In the writ petition, there is hardly any explanation for delay in approaching the Court. The award was made in the year 1976, which gave them cause of action to come to the Court. Mere direction to pay interest on the old rate, was no justification to entertain the writ petition at such belated stage. Moreover, even on merits decision of the appellant not to allot plots could not be held to be illegal or arbitrary. No final opinion need be expressed on contention relating to delay. 14. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 05, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 8