CWP No.13983 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13983 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2011 **** Gunwant Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. GS Sandhawalia, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was admittedly the owner in possession of land measuring 11 bigha 12 biswas (i.e. 2.5 acres) situated within the revenue estate of Bathinda which was acquired in the year 1993 for the Improvement Trust, Bathinda to float a scheme known as “49.5 Acres Development Scheme”. The petitioner’s grievance is that as per the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (in short, ‘the 1983 Rules’) which were in force at the relevant time, she was entitled to allotment of a plot measuring 500 CWP No.13983 of 2009.doc - 2 – sq.yards being a Locally-Displaced Person but the respondent-Trust is offering her a plot measuring 100 sq.yards only. (2). The above-mentioned facts are broadly not in dispute. (3). The Improvement Trust in its reply/affidavit maintains that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.17247 of 2007 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure P3) with a direction that the petitioner’s claim shall be considered in the light of the “earlier resolution for allotment of plots in the oustee quota” which was to be brought to the notice of the authority concerned. It is urged that the petitioner had specifically claimed a plot bigger than 100 sq.yards in that writ petition and there being no favourable direction, her claim is deemed to have been impliedly rejected by this Court. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.17247 of 2007 cannot be construed to have rejected the petitioner’s claim for allotment of a plot of more than 100 sq.yards. This Court had directed that the petitioner’s claim shall be considered in the light of the resolution earlier passed. The petitioner has placed on record the resolution No.32/2004 (Annexure P1) wherein CWP No.13983 of 2009.doc - 3 – the Improvement Trust while deciding Item No.11 unanimously resolved that “the petitioner Gunwant Kaur be allotted plot as per rules under L.D.P. quota”. At that time, the allotment of the plots to the Locally-Displaced Persons used to be regulated by 1983 Rules. (5). Rule 4(2)(iii) of the 1983 Rules provides that if the area of the land acquired exceeds two acres but does not exceed three acres the local displaced person shall be entitled to allotment of plot measuring 300 sq.yards. That being so, there can be no exception but to hold that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot measuring 300 sq.yards. (6). The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned order 20.10.06 (Annexure P2) whereby the petitioner has been offered plot measuring 100 sq.yards only is modified and the respondent-Trust is directed to allot a plot measuring 300 sq.yards to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 04.04.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge