Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.8.2011 Chaman Lal Gupta and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. ( ORAL) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, rejecting their prayer for allotment of a plot as local displaced persons. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Improvement Trust-respondent no.2 to allot a suitable plot. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order rejecting the application for allotment of plots as local displaced persons is perverse, arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioners are, admittedly, children of the land-owner Sant Ram and Maya Devi. It is not denied that land belonging to Sant Ram was acquired and that he passed Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 2 away before the award was pronounced. The Chairman, Improvement Trust, has rejected the application by holding that rights of Sant Ram are not heritable and if heritable, a plot cannot be allotted as Maya Devi, the original applicant, was owner of 1/5th share. The reasons set out in the impugned order are neither legally nor factually correct. The right under consideration, namely, allotment of a plot as a “local displaced person”, flows from Sant Ram deceased, to all LRs of Sant Ram. The Chairman of the Improvement Trust has no jurisdiction to hold that as the 1/5th share inherited by Maya Devi, from Sant Ram deceased, is less than 500 sq. yards, she is not entitled to a plot. It is further argued that as a Full Bench has held in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Versus Kanwaljit Singh and others, decided on 4.2.2004, that each co- sharer is entitled to a separate plot, the petitioners should be allotted separate plot. Counsel for the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, on the other hand, submits that Sant Ram passed away on 7.9.1976, before the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. Sant Ram left behind five legal heirs, i.e., his wife, three daughters, and a son. The compensation was received by the legal heirs of Sant Ram. The application for allotment was filed by Smt. Maya Devi alone as the widow of Sant Ram. She was not entitled to allotment of a plot as the 1/5th share inherited by Maya Devi is less than 500 sq. yards. The petitioners who are legal heirs of Maya Devi cannot, therefore, be allotted a plot. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 3 The land in dispute was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, for development and execution of a 256 Acre Development Scheme. Sant Ram, was, admittedly, a “local displaced person”, as he was owner of a part of the acquired land. Sant Ram passed away before the award, leaving behind Maya Devi his widow, and the petitioners - his son and daughters. Maya Devi filed an application for allotment of a plot. The petitioners filed affidavits that they have no objection if a plot is allotted in the name of Maya Devi. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, addressed a letter, dated 4.6.1981 (Annexure P-1), to Maya Devi asking her to deposit earnest money and apply for the allotment of a plot as a “local displaced person.” Smt. Maya Devi is alleged to have deposited earnest money, vide receipt dated 16.6.1981. However, as no plot was allotted to Smt. Maya Devi, she filed CWP No. 13852 of 1993, praying for allotment of a plot. A Division Bench of this court passed the following order on 12.11.1993: “ Notice. To be listed for hearing within a year of completion of service. The authority may consider if the plot can be allotted to the petitioner. Otherwise one plot be reserved for the petitioner.” In compliance with this order, plot bearing no. 113 B, measuring 200 sq. yards, was reserved for Smt. Maya Devi in the 256 Acres Development Scheme. Smt. Maya Devi passed away on 11.8.2001. The petitioners were impleaded as her legal heirs. The Government of Punjab addressed a letter to the Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, asking him to complete the process Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 4 of allotment. The writ petition was eventually disposed of on 11.1.2010 by the following order: “1 Learned counsel for the State, states that the State was originally directed to be impleaded as party, in view of the fact that the Improvement Trust had been dissolved and the reply was expected of the State. He states that the improvement trust had since been revived and it will be therefore competent for the Improvement Trust to contest the case in its own name and that there is no need for filing reply at this stage. 2. The learned counsel for the Improvement Trust states that the allotment of a plot to the petitioner is under active consideration and that a decision will be taken soon. The Improvement Trust shall take an appropriate decision in the light of the relevant rules and communicate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. 3. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.” The Chairman, Improvement Trust, has rejected the petitioners' claim for allotment of a plot on the following grounds: (a) The rules do not contain a provision that upon death of a local displaced person, his right to allotment of a plot survives and can be claimed by his legal representative; (b) Sant Ram, the land owner, was survived by five Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 5 legal heirs. Maya Devi, his widow, could not apply for a plot without impleading the other legal heirs; ( c ) Even if it is presumed that legal representatives have a right to apply for a plot as Maya Devi had 1/5th share in the acquired land, i.e., less than 500 sq. yards she is not entitled to allotment of a plot; and (d) Maya Devi has failed to prove that she is a displaced person who is entitled to rehabilitation. The impugned order, in my considered opinion, smacks of an arbitrary, perverse and legally mala fide exercise of jurisdiction. The Chairman of the Improvement Trust, appears to be unaware of basic principles of law. Admittedly, Sant Ram was alive when notifications under sections 36 and 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, were issued acquiring his land. Sant Ram was, therefore, a “local displaced person” as defined under Rule 2 (d) of the Punjab Town Improvement Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) and, therefore, entitled to allotment of a plot. Rule 2(d) of the Rules reads as follows: “ 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.” Sant Ram was, admittedly, a local displaced person, Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 6 as defined under rule 2 (d) of the Rules. A local displaced person is not required to establish anything more than the ingredients set out in Rule 2(d) of the Rules. The respondents do not deny that Sant Ram was a local displaced person, whose rights have devolved upon Maya Devi. For the Chairman of the Improvement Trust to hold that Maya Devi has not proved that she requires rehabilitation is a perverse, arbitrary and legally mala fide reading of the rules. Upon the demise of Sant Ram, his rights as a “local displaced person” devolved upon his wife Maya Devi and his children, by operations of the laws of succession. The finding recorded by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust that there is no provision in the Rules that the rights of a deceased “local displaced person”, are heritable or can be enforced by his or her legal heirs reveals an ignorance of basic principles of law. A tangible right, devolves upon legal heirs of a deceased by operation of the law of inheritance and not by any rules or regulations that may or may not be framed. The finding recorded by the Chairman, to the contrary is, thus, perverse and arbitrary and must, therefore, be set aside. The finding that as Sant Ram was survived by five LRs, Maya Devi alone could not apply for allotment of a plot, disregards the affidavits filed by the petitioners in her favour, which even otherwise have become irrelevant on her death. Another conclusion, recorded by the Chairman is that as Maya Devi alone has applied for a plot and as her share in the acquired land is less than 500 sq. yards, she is not entitled to allotment of plot, merits summary rejection. Maya Devi applied for allotment of a plot as the widow of a “local displaced person”. Her Civil Writ Petition No. 18514 of 2010 7 application is supported by affidavits filed by the petitioners that they have no objection if the plot is allotted in her name. The petitioners did not give up their rights but prayed that the plot be allotted in the name of their mother. After the demise of Maya Devi, the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Sant Ram and Maya Devi, have inherited her 1/5th share in addition to the shares already inherited from Sant Ram. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, for consideration afresh. Parties are directed to appear before the, learned Chairman, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana on 9.11.2011. 29.8.2011 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) VK JUDGE