JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. PREM MITTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of R. S. A. Nos. 2971 of 1986, 277, 278, 475 and 2596 of 1987, 1970 to 1973, 2302 to 2305, 2779 and 2780 of 1988 110, 629, 1062 and 1504 of 1989, 487 of 1990, 1268 of 1991, 4 and 2164 of 1993 and CWP No. 7287 of 1992 as the question of law is the same in these appeals. Facts are being taken from RSA No. 2971 of 1986. Particular facts will also be adverted to, if need be to examine the contentions raised.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled for a plot measuring 10 marlas as a local displaced person in lieu of the land acquired by the defendant-the Jalandhar Improvement Trust in the development Scheme of 110 acres of land which was acquired vide notification dated 3. 8. 1976 and by way of consequential relief claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendant to allot a plot in lieu of the land acquired in a X Scheme wherever the plot is available.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 filed written statement and took few preliminary objections, namely, that the Jalandhar Improvement Trust had long been dissolved and an Administrator has been appointed and so defendant No. 2 has not been properly sued; secondly, suit is hopelessly barred by time as notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was published on 30. 9. 1974, award was announced on 3. 8. 1976 and even possession of the same was taken on 17. 7. 1979 and so the suit is liable to be dismissed; thirdly, that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; fourthly, suit is not maintainable in the present form as the plaintiff is impliedly seeking relief for possession of a plot and so a suit for bare declaration is not maintainable; and lastly, claim was resisted on the plea of estoppel and laches. On merit, it was stated that the plaintiff neither falls within the category of a local displaced person nor he is entitled to allotment of a plot. Besides it, the plaintiff had already received the compensation in respect of the property acquired without raising any objection/protest. As regards the averment of the plaintiff that defendant No. l vide letter dated 31. 8. 1981 had directed defendant No. 2 to allot plots to all local displaced persons according to Rules prevalent when the Scheme was framed, defendant in his reply stated that the clarification of letter dated 31. 8. 1981 is yet waited. Averment of the plaintiff that he is a local displaced person was not accepted.