SUSHMA PALTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 751 of 1992 (Sushma Palta and others v. State of Punjab and others), 750 of 1992 (Kamla Makhani and another v. State of Punjab and another), 1208 of 1992 (Harinder Singh Chawla v. State of Punjab and another), 1236 of 1991 (Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another), 1237 of 1991 (Gurdev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) and 1546 of 1991 (Smt. Poonam etc. v. State of Punjab etc.) The facts are being taken from LPA No. 751 of 1992.

(2.) LAND belonging to the writ petitioners or their predecessors was acquired for the Ajnala Road Development Expansion Scheme, which was notified under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on 21.4.1972, followed by a notification under Section 41 on 19.2.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered his award on 4.5.1974 and the possession of the land was also taken on 14.5.1980. After the award of the Collector on 4.5.1974, the Improvement Trust (respondent No. 2) issued notices inviting applications on prescribed forms for allotment of plots to local displaced persons under the Scheme. The appellants filed applications within time claiming that they were local displaced persons. This applications were, however, rejected on which they filed several writ petitions in this Court and at the time of the motion hearing, this Court directed that a plot be reserved for each of the petitioners, to be allotted to them in case they should succeed.

(3.) MR . M.L. Sarin, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has raised only one argument before us. He has emphasized that though it was open to the Court to give an interpretation keeping in view the intention behind the rule or statute, yet where the language of the rule was clear and explicit, an addition of words by the Court was clearly uncalled for. He has also pointed out that the provisions of Section 51 of the Act had been mutatis mutandis made applicable to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 16 thereof, clearly provided that till the possession of the acquired land continued to be with the land owners it was open to them to transfer the land till the possession was taken. He has accordingly pointed out that the possession had been taken from the land owners for the first time in the year 1980 and that the learned Single Judge had in fact given a finding in favour of the appellants on this aspect as well.