JAIDEV INDER SINGH versus AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 16-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 992 
JAIDEV lNDER SINGH 
v. 
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
(CivilAppea!Nos. 1411-1412of2016) 
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 
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 
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 
Land and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trusr Rules, 1975. 
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 
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, 
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 
compromise, if at all it can be called so, was only with respect to 
992 
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] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1411-
1412 of2016. 
From the Judgment ai1d Order dated 12. 10.2011 in CWPNo. 19034 
993 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
of201 I dated 17.08.2012 in RA No. 83 of2012 passed by the High 
F 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. 
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 
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 
G 
in an Award dated 03. I 0.1973, around 63 acres ofland belonging to the 
H 
994 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 6] 2 S.C.R. 
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, c

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