JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. CHANNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two separate appeals have been filed by both the parties against the order of the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) issued a notice under Section 36 (equivalent of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act) of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 for acquisition of certain lands. This was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 19.9.1971. Land of one Surender Kumar was also covered in the lands notified by this notice. The lands were finally acquired on 2.5.1980. A parallel activity was going on simultaneously in the sense that the above mentioned Surender Kumar entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent/complainant Channa Ram on 1.1.1970. The conveyance deed of the said land was executed on 16.2.1972. Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) under powers conferred on it by Section 74 of the J.I.T. Act, notified Rules called the "Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954". These rules aimed towards disposal of the land thus acquired. Claiming entitlement for allotment under these rules, the respondent/complainant applied for allotment for a plot under the "Rules" but this request was refused twice by the State Government on the ground that respondent/complainant was not the owner of the land on the day of Gazette Notification under Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. The State Government in 1992 again invited applications from eligible local displaced persons for allotment of plots in the area acquired by J.I.T. Respondent/Complainant applied again in May, 1992 when the complainant was not getting any response on this application, he approached the State Commission to direct the State Government to dispose of the case favourably at an early date, on which State Commission passed an order on 16.2.1996 directing the State Government to take an early decision on the application of the complainant made in May, 1992. The application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that this opportunity was offered to those displaced persons who could not apply earlier. Since the request of the Respondent/Complainant had already been considered and rejected, his case cannot be considered de-novo.

(3.) It is in these circumstances, that the respondent/complainant approached the State Commission seeking appropriate reliefs. The State Government after holding that the respondent/complainant is covered by the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954 and is a bona fide local displaced person directed the appellant to allot the plot measuring 1 Kanal plot either under the original scheme called the "43 acre Scheme" or at an alternative site which is equally developed, pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.