RSA No.1517 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1517 of 1986 Date of Decision:3.2.2011 The Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur through its Chairman. ...Appellant Versus Mrs. Basant Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S.Mattewal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) This is an appeal preferred by the Jullundhar Improvement Trust against the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1986 passed by the Appellate court dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1984 decreeing the suit of Mrs.Basant Kaur, respondent, for mandatory injunction directing the Trust to allot a plot to the plaintiff-respondent Smt.Basant Kaur. 2. Having remained unsuccessful in both the courts, defendant/ appellant is in the instant second appeal before this Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent, Basant Kaur, filed a suit against the defendants/appellant on the ground that she was owner of the plot measuring 10 marlas, which was situated in Basti Guzan, Jullundur. She purchased this plot vide sale deed dated 4.11.1972. The said plot was acquired by the appellant for the development of its 74.33 acres scheme. After the acquisition of her land, the plaintiff/respondent became entitled to the allotment of plot being local displaced person. The RSA No.1517 of 1986 2 defendant/appellant was asked to allot the plot but of no avail. 4. The defendant/appellant contested the suit of the plaintiff/respondent and filed written statement, wherein acquisition of the plot of the plaintiff/respondent was admitted and pleaded that the case of the plaintiff/appellant was still under consideration. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is a local displaced person? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction prayed for? OPD. 3. Relief. 6. Vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.1984, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the defendant/appellant was directed to allot a plot to the plaintiff next below 10 marlas in lieu of her land acquired by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant/appellant i.e. the Trust preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, wherein the finding recorded by the learned trial Court was affirmed and appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.1.1986. 7. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant/appellant. 8. The short question involved in the present appeal is that “whether the plaintiff falls within the definition of ‘Local Displaced Person’ or not under the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954”, which were framed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust or under Rule 2 A of the Punjab Town Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, approved by the State of Punjab. There are RSA No.1517 of 1986 3 no other Rules applicable to the Land acquired by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. 9. Rule 2 (b) Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954, defined the ‘Local Displaced Person’ as the person whose Land has been acquired for a Scheme to be executed under the Damage Area Act. As the land in the present case is not acquired under the Damage Area Act but under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, as such the plaintiffs are not ‘Local Displaced Person’ under the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954. 10. So far as Punjab Town Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, are concerned, Rule 2 (a) provides for the definition of ‘Local Displaced Person’, which provides a person should be the owner of the land acquired by the Trust for the execution of any Scheme under the Act and has been owner for continuous period of 2 years immediately before the first publication of the scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Act. The relevant portion of Rule 2(a) of 1975 Rules is reproduced as under:- “Local displaced person” means a person who is the owner of any land acquired by the Trust for execution of any scheme under the Act and who has been such owner for a continuous period to two years immediately before the first publication of such scheme by the Trust under Section 36”. 11. In the present case, the notification under Section 36 was issued on 12.08.1974; the plaintiff purchased the land on 4.11.1972 and she was not the owner of the property acquired by the Trust for the execution of the scheme two years prior to the date of notification under Section 36 as such, RSA No.1517 of 1986 4 she is not ‘Local Displaced Person’ under the 1975 Rules and is not entitled to the plot. 12. The case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh etc., 1999(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 568, wherein it was held as under:- “6. On 18.9.1975, the State Government promulgated Rules titled as “Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975”. Rules 2(a) thereof defines “”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”. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules makes reservation of plots and tenants in favour of local displaced persons. On 22.12.1983, the State Government promulgated another Rules titled “The Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983”. Rule 2(d) of the said Rules defines ‘local displaced person’ as follows:- “Local displaced person” means a person who is the owner of any land acquired by the Trust for the execution of any scheme under the Act and who has been such owner for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of such scheme by the Trust under Section 36.” RSA No.1517 of 1986 5 Rule 4(2) of the said Rules provides for preferential allotment in favour of a local displaced person. 7. A perusal of the above Rules shows that so far as the 1954 Rules are concerned, the definition of ‘local displaced person’ is confined to a person whose lands have been acquired for a scheme to be executed under the Damaged Areas Act. It is not applicable to any other scheme. So far as the 1975 and 1983 Rules are concerned, the definition of ‘local displaced person’ applies to a person whose property has been acquired and who has been owner of such property for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of the scheme by the Trust. Thus, it is seen from all these three set of rules that in order to have the benefit of a preferential allotment reserved for a local displaced person, there are contain qualifying standards. Unless and until a person who wants to take benefit of the preferential reservation qualifies to be a local displaced person, the said benefit is not available to him.” 12. Even the Division Bench of this High Court in Khanna Improvement Trust, Khanna Vs. Jai Gopal Gupta, 1993(1) R.R.R. 604, has held as under:- “5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the appeal deserves to succeed. It will be seen that Rule 2 of the 1975 Rules was wholly inapplicable to the case of the respondents as they became owners of the acquired land on 16th June, 1975, whereas the Notification under Section 36 of RSA No.1517 of 1986 6 the Act had been issued on September 14, 1973, whereby they were required to be owners for a continuous period of two years immediately before the publication of the said Notification. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondents were covered by the Scheme is, therefore, totally erroneous. It is further apparent to us that the case of the respondents was not covered under the 1983 Rules for the simple reason that the land that had been acquired from each of them, was less than half an acre.” 13. So far as the argument of the plaintiff-respondent regarding the findings of both the courts below that the Punjab Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, are prospective in nature and not retrospective and thus not applicable. There are no other Rules which give the preferential allotment to the person whose land has been acquired and in which they may treat the appellant as Local Displaced Person. As there are no other Rules applicable to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, defining ‘Local Displaced Person’, the plaintiff is not entitled to the plot in the absence of any Rules under which she can claim to be ‘Local Displaced Person’, as such the findings of the both the courts below are erroneous in granting the plot as ‘Local Displaced Person’. Even if the Government declares her as local displaced person, which is contrary to the rules as there is no estoppel against the statute, does not give any legal right to the plaintiff to get the plot. 14. In RSA No. 2177 of 1986 `Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar vs. Kuldip Kaur, decided today (i.e. 3.2.2011), wherein the appeal of Trust has also been allowed holding that the respondent in that case is not RSA No.1517 of 1986 7 entitled to a plot, if the land was not purchased by a person within two years prior the date of notification under Section 36. In the case in hand, the respondent purchased the land measuring 10 marlas on 4.11.1972 while notification under Section 36 was issued on 12.8.1974. The respondent purchased the property within two years from the date of notification, thus she is not entitled to the plot being not covered by the definition of `local displaced person'. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal in hand is allowed. The judgments and decree dated 3.12.1984 and 2.1.1986 passed by the learned courts below are set aside. 3.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No