KALAWATI Vs. KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were owners of some property in Karnal had lost a piece of property for extent of 1240 per square yard acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act in fulfillment of development of a Scheme No. 37 for the area of Old Subzi Mandi, Karnal. In terms of Karnal Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1970, a local displaced person means a person whose property had been acquired by the Trust for the acquisition of any scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act. On the subject of allotment of some shops, which had been proposed in an alternative place, the petitioners had filed C.W.P. No. 2124 of 1976 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed an order on 13.05.1976 on the basis of a common understanding between both parties. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had conceded that five heirs of the deceased-Tara Chand whose land had been acquired would be entitled to one plot each for the shop under the Rules and further that the heirs would also be entitled to compensation of the whole of the land belonging to the deceased.

(2.) All the petitioners, in terms of the undertaking given by the Court had also been allotted five plots in an extent of 113 per square yards. The allotment came through an agreement signed between the parties on 16.08.1984. Under the terms of the agreement, the Karnal Improvement Trust had received Rs. 2500/- and another Rs. 2500/- was obligated to be deposited after the construction of the shop. The cost of the price of the shop payable was put in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 2124 of 1976. Since the High Court judgment in the above case refers to the allotment of shop as per the Rules, the price has also to be understood in the context of how Rules provide for fixation of the price.

(3.) The dispute in the case is on account of the fact that after the allotment of the plots, the respondents were also demanding apart from the cost of development charges a reserve/concessional price, which the Administrator had fixed at Rs. 38,084/- for each of the plots. The challenge to the demand for the concessional price arises by the fact that in respect of every other allottee of shops, the property had been allotted free of cost for the property lost to them, but an amount in excess of the development charges was being demanded only from them. The demand for payment was also untenable, according to the petitioners since the Rules only provide for collection of a price, which shall be equivalent to the value of the extent of the property, which is acquired from the owner. To understand the tenability of the contention of the petitioner, we have to therefore look into the relevant provisions of the Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules of 1976. Section 2(c) defines as "Local displaced person" means a person whose property has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of the scheme or who has been a tenant of a property in the scheme for a period of not less than one year prior to publication by the Trust of the notice under Section 38 of the Act and continued as such till that property is acquired by the Trust." Section 2(h) defines as "Reserve place means a price of the land to the Trust i.e. estimated cost of acquisition plus development charges on which a site may be sold by allotment to a local displaced person."