IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19034 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 12.10.2011 Jaidev Inder Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Jaidev Inder Singh has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondent – Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, to allot 500 square yards plot each to the petitioner and his family members under the category of Local Displaced Persons. It is undisputed position that in the year 1974, certain land of the family of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent Trust under a Town Planning Development Scheme. It is further admitted position that qua that land, compensation was paid and vide letter dated 15.7.1981, the petitioner and his family members were allotted four plots measuring 250 square yards each. It is also admitted position that when possession of the CWP No. 19034 of 2011 -2- acquired land was to be taken, in view of the directions issued by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2634 of 1993, under a compromise 10.76 acres of land was also released from acquisition under the expansion scheme. Further, the respondent Trust considered the claim of the petitioner and his family members for allotment of plots in view of the direction issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition no. 2589 of 2011 and rejected the claim while observing that since the petitioner and his family members have already been allotted four plots measuring 250 square yards each and under a compromise, 10.76 acres of land has already been exempted from acquisition, therefore, the petitioner and his family members are not entitled to the plots under the category of Local Displaced Persons. It has not been disputed before us that under the said scheme, if certain land of the land owner is exempted from acquisition, then such land owner is not entitled for allotment of plot under the category of Local Displaced Persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the year 1981, the petitioner and his family members were allotted four plots each measuring 250 square yards, whereas they were entitled to be allotted 500 square yards each. This contention at this belated stage cannot be entertained, because the cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 1981, but at that time they did not lodge their claim with regard to allotment of big plots. Therefore, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to entertain this contention of the petitioner. In the last, learned counsel argued that father of the petitioner, CWP No. 19034 of 2011 -3- whose land was acquired, was not allotted any plot. However, it has been admitted that father of the petitioner died on 29.4.1979 and thereafter, the aforesaid four plots were allotted to his family members. In view of this fact, this contention also cannot be accepted. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 12, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE