JAGDISH RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of my orders dated 10th December, 1993 the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Khanna is present alongwith the relevant record and has assisted me for the disposal of the case.

(2.) AN area of 5. 5 acres of land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1974 for Improvement Trust, Khanna, for a Shopping Centre in Karnail Singh Road, Khanna, popularly known as Shri Guru Amardas Market Scheme.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it cannot be denied that under the Rules the petitioner was a displaced person and was entitled to an allotment of a plot to the extent of 500 square yards (residential ). It is not denied that persons similarly situated like the petitioner, whose land had been acquired, at least some of them, had been offered commercial plots of various sizes and in fact the petitioner had also been offered commercial sites; firstly SCO No. 5 measuring about 92 square yards, then plot No. 131 measuring 29. 5 square yards and thereafter plot No. 154 measuring 22 square yards. The stand of the respondent-Trust is that the petitioner was insisting on two out of the three plots i. e. 17-A, 17-B and 11-A time and again and was not accepting the allotment that was being made by the Trust. Now, according to the respondent-Trust there is no commercial plot available in the Scheme. Further the case of the respondent-Trust is that 1975 Rules referred to above were repealed by the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 and according to these Rules, the petitioner is entitled to residential plot of 200 square yards. Further according to communication from the Government dated 27th April 1984 (Copy Annexure R-1 with the written statement) all the Improvement Trusts were informed that it had been decided that the local displaced persons of Tank Stand Schemes or any other Commercial Scheme for that matter should be accommodated in other residential schemes of the Improvement Trust. On these premises learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of any commercial site in the Scheme.