TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry injunction against the appellant herein, namely, Jalandhar Improvement Trust (for short 'the Trust'), to allot them plots in lieu of lands acquired from them. The trial court in some cases decreed the suit and in others, dismissed the suit. In appeal, the first appellate court decreed all the suits and granted the relief prayed for. The Trust preferred second appeals before the High Court of Punjab Haryana which confirmed the decree of the first appellate court, giving rise to these appeals. The claim of the respondents in all these appeals arises on the basis that they are all 'local displaced persons' who are entitled to a plot each in lieu of the lands acquired from them by the appellant-Trust, in view of the prefere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. . Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules makes reservation of plots and tenements in favour of local displaced persons. On 22.12.1983, the State Government promulgated another Rule 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. 7. Rule 4(2) of the said Rules provides for preferential a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also entitled to the same. It was also contended on behalf of some of the respondents that the Trust had initially made allotments in their favour, pursuant to which they had even deposited certain sums of money, hence, it is not open to the Trust to cancel the allotments. 10. As stated above, the trial court decreed some of the suits and dismissed the rest of them. The first appellate court decreed all the suits and the same was confirmed by the High Court. It is contended on behalf of the appellant before us that none of the respondents-plaintiffs qualify to be 'local displaced person' so as to entitle him for a preferential allotment under the category of 'local displaced person'. It was also contended that the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals. If that be so, none of the respondents could claim a preferential allotment as contemplated under Rule 4(2) of the 1954 Rules. Therefore, the very basis of the claim of preferential allotment is non est in these cases. Assuming for argument's sake that the 1975 or 1983 Rules are applicable to the acquisitions in question even then a bare perusal of the statements in the Chart referred to above, shows none of these respondents qualifies to be a local displaced person even under those Rules because they have not been owners of the lands acquired for a continuous period of two years immediately before' the first publication of the scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Improvement Act. Therefore, none of these respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1972 made by the Collector, determining the compensation for the land acquired under the impugned Notification. this Court while refusing to quash the notice under Section 36 of the Act came to the conclusion that the amount awarded as compensation for the acquisition of the land was patently inequitable inasmuch as that while the appellant purchased the land from the Central Government at the price of ₹ 2,43,050/- on 25.6.1971, the Collector awarded the compensation only in amount of ₹ 1,10,561/-. Because of this inequitable situation, this Court enhanced the compensation to ₹ 2,43,050/- and in addition, directed payment of ₹ 50,000/- to the appellant for the improvements made in the acquired land. this Court, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allotments as local displaced person in favour of other persons. Therefore, the courts below came to the conclusion that even the plaintiffs-respondents were entitled to such allotment. In our opinion, before coming to this conclusion the courts below should have first decided the question whether the allotment in favour of those persons was within the scope of the Rules applicable. If it was not within the scope of the Rules then even those allotments in favour of other persons will not create a right in the respondents to claim equality with them; may be, if the allotments were made wrongly in favour of those persons, the same may become liable for cancellation, if permissible in law, but that will not create an enforceable right on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
