SMT. NIRMALA ASHRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Town Improvement Trust, Jind (which is now under the control of the Municipal Committee on its suppression) acquired certain lands under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, as applicable to State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for implementation of two housing schemes, i.e. Scheme No. 5 and Scheme No. 19. The land acquired for implementation of Scheme No. 5 included about 4000 sq. feet of land belonging to respondent No. 3, Shri Mange Ram Gupta, who was at the relevant time Minister in the State Legislative Assembly. Land held by the family of Shri Gian Prakash, deceased husband of the petitioner, Smt. Nirmala Ashri, was acquired for implementation of scheme No. 19. It is common ground that respondent No. 3 Mange Ram Gupta, was not allotted any land for building purposes under Scheme No. 5. Under Scheme No. 19 plot No. 1 was allotted to the petitioner. Plots contiguous thereto were allotted to other members of the petitioner's family. It appears that respondent No.3, who at the relevant time was the Minister-in-charge, Local Self Government of the State, moved the State Government for allotment of plot to him in Scheme No. 19 as he was not allotted any plot to him in Scheme No. 5. Meanwhile, the original lay out plan was changed. Consequently, the number of plots reflected in the subsequent plan did not correspond to the number of plots shown in the earlier plan. Three plots bearing Nos. 45, 46 and 47, covering an area of about 1000 sq. yards in Scheme No. 19 were allotted to respondent No. 3. It may be mentioned that the location of plot No. 1 in the earlier plan and which was allotted to the petitioner was reflected in the subsequent plan as plot No. 47 which now stood allotted to respondent No. 3. This gave rise to the dispute between the parties and has led to the present litigation.

(2.) When this petition was filed and entertained, number of other persons come forward claiming allotment of plots in Scheme No. 19. Some of them are the members of the family of late shri gian Prakash while others are persons whose lands were acquired for implementation of Scheme No. 19. They also claimed that as per their entitlement lands be allotted to them. All those petitions (bearing number 3191 of 87, 3189 of 87, 535 of 87, 536 of 87, 1023 of 86, 1150 of 86, 1363 of 86, 1384 of 86, 2299 of 86, 2300 of 86, 2383 of 86, 2592 of 86, 3030 of 86, 3258 of 86, 3262 of 86, 3263 of 86, 3264 of 86, 3265 of 86, 3266 of 86, 4587 of 85, 5094 of 87, 5134 of 86, 5162 of 86, 5162 of 86, 5163 of 86, 5164 of 86, 5815 of 87, 6944 of 86, 8598 of 87, 2620 of 85, 5625 of 86, 3468 of 87, 6889 of 87, 6889 of 88, 14180 of 90, 16573 of 90, 3687 of 86, 5768 of 87, 1753 of 87, 3688 of 86, 10483 of 88) were heard together and this order shall also govern the disposal of those petitions.

(3.) Petitioners's challenge to the allotment of any plot in Scheme No. 19 to Shri Mange Ram Gupta respondent No. 3, is based on the allegations that Shri Mange Ram Gupta cannot be said to be a "local displaced person" entitled to allotment of any plot much less an area of 1000 sq. yards in that scheme. Offer on behalf of respondent No. 3 also was belated and his application for the purpose was barred by limitation. Shri Mange Ram Gupta, respondent No. 3. exercising his influence as a Minister mala fide and with ulterior motive got the plan altered to suit him and to oust the petitioner, The alternation is contrary to the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act inasmuch as the necessary procedure for the purpose was not followed. The petitioner's claim is that since samadhis of their ancestors were located near the land allotted to them in Scheme no. 19, and, therefore, while quashing the allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 land/plots initially allotted to her and to the members of her family should be maintained.