High CourtDivision Bench2016-02-16Appeals partly allowed.

Jaidev Inder Singh v. Amritsar Improvement Trust

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 1411-1412 of 2016

Neutral Citation:[2016] 2 S.C.R. 992

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Kurian, J.
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
Judgment Date: 2016-02-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals partly allowed. The Court directed the Trust to allot a plot to each appellant and three family members to the extent of 250 sq yards each, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Trust. The reserve price shall be fixed in accordance with the price on the date of the application.
Final Disposition: Appeals partly allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jaidev Inder Singh

Respondents

Amritsar Improvement Trust

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nikhil Goel
• Marsook Bafaki

Counsels for Respondents

• R.K. Rathore
• K.S. Dadwill
• Vinay Arora
• S.S. Rawat

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jaidev Inder Singh v. Amritsar Improvement Trust concerns two separate acquisitions of land belonging to the appellant and his family under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, and the corresponding land allotment rules. Pursuant to notifications dated December 18, 1972, and February 19, 1973, the appellant and four family members had portions of land acquired, totaling roughly 63 acres in the first acquisition and 87 acres in the second. The appellants sought relief under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, arguing they are local displaced persons entitled to allotments up to 500 sq yards per person on a freehold basis at reserve price. The Trust declined, noting that for the first acquisition only 250 sq yards per person had been allotted and that a prior compromise releasing some land did not foreclose further rights. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Trust’s order. The Supreme Court held that a "local displaced person" must be understood with reference to the specific acquisition; subsequent acquisitions do not erase that status for the purposes of the relevant acquisition. However, given the facts and the Rules’ 500 sq yard cap, the Court limited relief to 250 sq yards per person and directed allotment accordingly within three months, with reserve prices fixed as of the application date. Appeals partly allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, s. 36Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (Rule 7(ii))

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Purposive interpretation of statutes
Local displaced person (concept under the Rules)
In the interest of justice (guiding principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants argued they are local displaced persons entitled under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 to up to 500 sq yards per person on a freehold basis at reserve price. Two acquisitions at different locations should not erase their status for purposes of entitlement. They had already been allotted 250 sq yards per person for the first acquisition and sought relief for 500 sq yards per person; they asserted the compromise regarding the 10.76 acres released from acquisition did not extinguish rights under the Rules, and belatedness should not bar relief since the challenge to acquisition concluded in 2001 and applications were made in 2010. They sought either 500 sq yards per person or, in light of the facts, at least 250 sq yards per person.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued the appellant family had already been allotted 250 sq yards each for the first acquisition. The second acquisition, though at a different location, did not justify a further grant of 500 sq yards. They contended there was no comprehensive release of 10.76 acres for an orchard and that the compromise related only to the challenge to acquisition, not to allotment rights. They asserted the claim under the Rules cannot exceed the already allotted 250 sq yards and that belated filing in 2010 should be rejected. They argued that even if belated, the claim for 500 sq yards is not supported since the Rules cap at 500 sq yards and the peculiar facts do not warrant more than 250 sq yards. They further submitted that later acquisitions cannot revive rights beyond the local displaced person status for the specific acquisition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jaidev Inder Singh v. Amritsar Improvement Trust and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 992 A ## JAIDEV lNDER SINGH v. ## AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST (CivilAppea!Nos. 1411-1412of2016) B FEBRUARY 16, 2016 ## (KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) _Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922_ - _s. 36 ·-Acquisition of land of appellant and his family members_ - _Two different land_ - _acquisitions at two different locations Appellant and his family_ c _members a/lolled 250 sq. yards of land each. in ropect of the first_ - _acquisition Appellant and his family members covered by the second acquisition sought release of land to an extent of 500 sq. yards each_ - _Held: Once the land owner is allotted lands as per the Rules as a local displaced person, thereafter even if his property is_ D _acquired at subsequent slage or at a different place, he will be a local displaced person_ - _Since the Rules indicate that the allotment is for a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards, appellant and his family cannot claim to an extent of 500 sq. yards each-· Jn the illlerest of iustice, the claim is limited lo the extent of 250 sq. yards each and the trust is accordingly directed to allot the same_ - _Utilisation of_ E _Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trusr Rules, 1975._ c ## Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Once the land owner is allotted lands as per the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust F Rules, 1975 as a local displaced person, thereafter even if his property is acquired at subsequent stage or at a different place, he will be a local displaced person. 'Local displaced person' has to be understood with reference to the acquisition concerned. )Para 7] (995-G) - 1.2 There is nothing on record to show that as a package, - G I 0. 76 acres of land for orchard was released, pursuant to which no other claim permissible in law would be available to the appellant and his three other members of the family. There is nothing on record to show that any reserve price was collected for the release of land. It is seen from the judgment that the - H compromise, if at all it can be called so, was only with respect to 992 993 JAIDEV INDER SINGH v. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST the challenge on the acquisition and there was no issue on the claim for allotment under the Rules as a local displaced person. [Para 8, 9) [995-H; 996-A-B] 1.3 The challenge on the acquisition was finally concluded before the High Court by judgment dated 27.09.2001 and the appellant and the other owners of the land belonging·to the family of the appellant were dispossessed only on 09.06.2008, as can be seen even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter in 2010, they have made the claim for allotment of land under the Rules before the Trust. Therefore, it cannot be held that the claim is highly belated and they should be non-suited on this ground. [Para 10] [996-C-D] 1.4 The appellant and the other owners belonging to the family cannot make a claim for an extent of 500 sq. yards each. The Rules indicate that the allotment is for a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards. Having been satisfied and having limited their claim only to 250 sq. yards each in respect of acquisition made pursuant to Notification dated 18.12.1972, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice would be served if the claim is limited to the extent of 250 sq. yards each. The respondent is directed to allot a plot each to the extent of 250 sq. yards to the appellant and bis three other members of the family. [Paras 11, 12, 13) [996-D-G] A B c D E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14111412 of2016. From the Judgment ai1d Order dated 12. 10.2011 in CWPNo. 19034 of201 I dated 17.08.2012 in RA No. 83 of2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. F Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Advs. for the Appellants. R.K. Rathore, K.S. Dadwill, Vinay Arora, S.S. Rawat, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 2.Pursuant to the Notification dated I 8. I 2. I 972 issued under Section 36 of Punjab Town lmprovementTrustAct, I 922, which resulted in an Award dated 03. I 0.1973, around 63 acres ofland belonging to the H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 6] 2 S.C.R. - A appellant and his other thr.ee family members were acquired. Subsequently, by a Notification dated I 9.02. I 973, another acquisition at a different location was initiated, culiminating in Award dated 04.05. I 974, acquiring 87 acres ofland belonging to the appellant and his three other members of the family. It appears that there was a challenge before the High Court of judicature of Punjab and Haryana on an acquisition, which - B led ultimately to the Judgment dated 27 .09.200 I in Regular Second Appeal No. 2634 of I 993. It is seen fr~m the Judgment that a decision was taken by the Empowered Committee to exempt 10.76 acres of land of the family of the appellant on condition that the same would be maintained as an orchard. The Second Appeal was disposed of, decreeing that 10.76 - C acres of land would stand exempted from acquisition with a condition that in case the condition is violated, it would be open tothe Government or the Trust to initiate fresh steps for acquisition. 3. Thereafter, the appellant and the other members of the family, who are the owners of the land covered ·by the second acquisitiun; - D approached the Trust seeking release of land to an extent of 500 sq. yards each in tenns of the Rules aforementioned. The Trust declined the request on two grounds, viz:- i) The appellant and three other members of the family had already been allotted 250 sq. yards ofland. - E ii) There was a compromise before the High Court, pursuant to which I 0. 76 acres of land was exempte'd from acquisition and was released to the appellant. 4. The said order dated 24.03.2011 was challenged before the High Court in CWPNo. 19034 of20 I I, leading to the impugned Judgment F dated 12.10.2011, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made the following submissions :- - i) The appellant and his three other meIT!bers of the family had - already been allotted 250 sq. yards each and, therefore, thdre was no - G justification in making a further claim. ii) The acquisition is of the year I 974 and the claim for release of land in terms of the Rules was made in 20 I 0. · - iii) Since the whole claims were settled by way of a compromise, - the appellant and his three other members of the family cannot, under - H law, make any further claim; and finally; 995 ## JAJDEV INDER SINGH v. ·AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST [KURIAN, J.] , .. A iv) it is submitted that even assuming the respondent lost on all the above points, there is no justification in making the claim for 5-00 sq. yards of land-since the appellant and·his three other members of the family had limited their claim to 250 sq. yards in respect of the earlier acquisition. 6. In terms of the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots and B Improvement Trust Rules, I 975, it is not in dispute that four meml>ers of the family of the appellant had already been allotted 250 sq. yards of land each. This is in respect of the first acquisition. There are two different acquisitions at two different locations. One acquisjtion is pursuant to the Notification dated·l 8: I 2.1972 and the other dated I 9.02.1973. They are different acquisitions and at different locations. we have referred fo the c position under the Rules which entitles a locar displaced person to claim an extent upto 500 sq.yards of land on freehold basis at reserve price calculated on the basis of the formula annexed to the Rules. The Rules will have to be understood purposively and interpreted in a just and fair manner. 'Local displaced person' under the Rules is defined as follows:- D "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." Rule 7 (ii) deals with eligibility, which reads as follows:- E ''A local disp!aced person may be allotted a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards on freehold basis on reserve price calculated on the basis of the formula in the An~~xure, if the area of the land owned by him and acquired by the Trust is more than 500 sq. yards .. If the area of the acquired land is less than 500 sq. yards the local displaced person shall be entitled to allotment of plot which is nearest in size, next below the area of his land, which has-come under acquisition." F 7. It cannot be held that once the land owner is allotted lands as per the Rules as a local displaced person, thereafter even if his property is acquired at subsequent stage or at a different place, he will not be a local displaced person. Local displaced person has to be understood with reference tci the acquisitio~ ~oncerned. G 8. We also do not find an~ basis for the contention that there was a compromise. There is nothing on record to show that as a package, 10. 76 acres of land for 'orchard was released, pursuant to whicb -nci H 996 [2016] 2 S.CR. SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A other claim permissible in law would be available to the appellant and his three other members of the family. 9. There is also nothing on record to show that any reserve price was collected forthe release of land. It is seen from the Judgment that the compromise, ifat all it can be called so, was only with respect to the B challenge on the acquisition and there was no issue on the claim for allotment under the Rules as a local displaced person. 10. We also find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel forthe respondentthat the claim is highly belated. The challenge on the acquisition was finally concluded before the High Court by Judgment dated 27.09.2001 and the appellant and the other owners of c the land belonging to the family of the appellant were dispossessed only on 09.06.2008, as can be seen even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter in 2010, they have made the claim for allotment of land under the Rules before the Trust. Therefore, it cannot be held that the claim is highly belated and they should be non- D suited on this ground. 11. However, we see some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appel I ant and the other owners belonging to the family cannot make a claim for an extent of 500 sq. yards each. The Rules indicate that the allotment is for a plot upto the size of 500 sq. yards. E F G 12. Having been satisfied and having limited their claim only to 250 sq. yards each in respect ofacquisition made pursuant to Notification dated 18.12.1972, in the peculiar facts and circumtances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be advanced if the claim is limited to the extent of250 sq. yards each. 13 .Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed with a direction to the respondent to allot a plot each to the extent of 250 sq. yards to the appellant and his three other members of the family, who are the owners of the acquired land. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Trust. 14. In view of the application made by the appellant and three other members of the family in the year 2010, needless to say that the reserve price that would be fixed by the Trust would be in accordance with the price as fixed on the date of the application. No costs. - H Nidhi Jain Appeals partly allowed.