CHAIRMAN, LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus KANWALJIT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 04-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN, LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
v. 
KANWALJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY ·4, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
land Acquisition: 
Ludhiana Improvement Trust land Disposal Rules, 1964-Rules 5(ii) 
C and 6-land acquired from joint holders by Trust-Joint holders claiming 
that each of them entitled to allotment of plot in lieu of land acquired-
Representation-local Government seeking information-Chairman of Trust 
by letter replying that each holder entitled to plots-Writ petition seeking 
allotment of separate plots-Division Bench of High Court directing Trust to 
D decide representation and allot plot if entitled subject to the availability of 
plots-Inaction on the part of Chairman-Contempt petition against 
Chairman-Single Judge of High Court discharging the Chairman and 
recording thai Trust had accepted the claim of holders for allotment of 
separate plots-Justification of-Held: Correspondence exchanged between 
E the G9vernment and the Chairman cannot be treated as decision taken by 
Trust to alloi .each holder a plot-Also for deciding representation number of 
questions have to be considered-Single Judge erred in recording the finding 
which is set aside. 
Appellant-trust framed Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal 
F Rules, 1964. As per the Rules not more than one plot of land when 
demarcated into plots was to be sold to local displaced person being the 
person whose land was acquired by the trust. In March 1975, appellant-
{ 
trust acquired 8.4 acres land owned by respondents as joint holders in a 
khata for construction of four storeyed flats. Thereafter, in September, 
1975, Utjlization of Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust 
G Rules, 1975 was framed. Subsequently, Punjab Town Improvement 
(Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 were promulgated 
which provided that only one plot can be allotted to the joint holders of a 
Khata. in the acquired land. In 1988 respondent made a representation 
claimin' that each of them be allotted one plot. Appellant submitted that 
H 
88 
• 
"""'\. 
' ,. 
!; 
CHAIRMAN, LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. KANWAUIT SINGH 
89 
as no plots had been carved out in the scheme, flat's could be allotted to A 
them. Local Government then sought clarification from the Trust 
regarding respondents' claim. Chairman of appellant-trust replied to the 
Local Government by letter dated 19.8.1994 that every joint holder is 
entitled to be allotted a plot. Respondents filed writ petition praying for 
allotment of separate plots. Writ petition was disposed of directing the B 
Trust to decide the representation and allot plots if found entitled in view 
of the availability. Respondents again filed a representation. Thereafter, 
the Government issued notification clarifying that only one plot could be 
allotted to joint Khata holders. Chairman again did not accede to the 
request. Respondents filed contempt petition against the Chairman. Single 
Judge of High Court discharged the Chairman and recorded a finding that C 
in view of the letter the respondents were entitled to fiv.e plots and that if 
the respondents despite their entitlement are not being allotted the plots, 
they shall be at liberty to proceed against the Trust or Chairman in 
accordance with law. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Trust contended that the Single Judge of High Court erred D 
in recording the finding that in view of the letter by the Trust respondents 
were entitled to five plots and if despite their entitlement they arc not 
allotted the plots, they shall be at liberty to proceed against the Trust or 
Chairman; that the letter of Chairman prior in time to the directions 
issued by the High Court in writ petition could not be made the basis for E 
recording a finding that the Trust had accepted or endorsed the·claim of 
the respondents for allotment of one plot each. 
Respondents contended that their claim was to be determined in 
accordance with 1964 Rules and since the Chairman of the Trust in 
response to a letter written by the Government had accepted that each of F 
the joint holder in the joint Khata was entitled to the allotment of a 
separate plot they had become entitled to the allotment of five plots. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Letter dated 19.8.1994 was written by the Chairman of G 
the trust in response to the query made by the State Government. Based 
on this letter writ petition was filed in the High Court for issuance of a 
manda

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.