http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1077 of 1998

PETITIONER: Chairman, Ludhiana Improvement Trust                     

RESPONDENT: Kanwaljit Singh & Ors.                                           

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2004

BENCH: R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

BHAN, J.

1.      Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, (hereinafter referred to as  "the appelllant") acquired 8.4 acres land owned by the respondents as joint  holders in a khata in the month of  March 1975.    The land was  acquired for  construction of  four storeyed flats.  Under the scheme prepared by the trust   no individual plots were to be carved out.

2.      Appellant  had framed ’The Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land  Disposal Rules, 1964’ (hereinafter referred to as "the  1964 Rules").   Local  displaced person  was defined to mean a person whose land was acquired by  the Trust for the execution of a scheme under the Punjab Town  Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").   Rule 5 (ii)  provides that the Trust would fix  a concessional price at which land  comprised in a scheme will be sold to a local displaced person.  The  concessional price was not to be less then the cost price of the land, i.e. the  estimated cost of acquisition of the land plus development charges etc.  Not  more than one plot of land when demarcated in to plots, was be sold to a  local displaced person.  Rule 6 provides  for issuance of a public notice in an  appropriate form in the prescribed manner inviting applications from the  Local displaced person.  The  Land Officer after making enquiries as  deemed fit as to the correctness of the statements made therein was to submit  all the applications received upto the last date fixed for this purpose to the  Chairman who in turn could sell the land to the  applicants subject to  confirmation by the Trust at the   concessional  price  fixed  by  it  under  Rule 5 (ii).

3.      In September 1975, the State of Punjab framed the Utilisation of Land  and Allotment of Plots and Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (hereinafter  referred to as "the 1975 Rules").  Subsequently in 1983 Punjab Town  Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983  (hereinafter referred to as "the 1983 Rules") were promulgated which  provided that only one plot can be allotted to the joint holders of a Khata in  the acquired land.  On 17.8.1988 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who were the joint  Khata holders of the acquired land made a representation to the State of  Punjab to allot one plot to each one of them.  Some correspondence was  exchanged between the appellant and the Respondents.  The stand being  taken by the appellant was that the respondents could be allotted  flats and  not plots as no plots had been carved out in the scheme.  On 5.8.1994  Department of Local Government Punjab wrote a letter to the Improvement  Trust,  Ludhiana seeking certain information regarding the claim of  Respondents 1 to 5 for allotment of plots to them, which was replied to by  the then  Chairman of the appellant Trust on 19.8.1994 which reads as  under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

"OFFICE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST,  LUDHIANA

To         The Director         Department of Local Govt.,         Punjab,         Chanidgarh

       Memo No. LIT/7059 dated 19.8.1994

Sub: Regarding allotment of L.D.P. to Shri D.S.  Grewal, IPS, Attorney

Ref: Your letter No. 5/400/94-2 IG 11/9032 dated  5.8.1994 on the above noted subject.

The requisite information, as asked for, is given  below:-

1)      That 8.4 Acre Scheme of the Trust under  Section 36 was published on 26.3.1975 and,  as per this Scheme, 1964 Rules are  applicable for L.D.P. allotments. 2)      That there is no record available in the office  for inviting applications from the L.D.Ps.  under this Scheme and earnest money was  deposited by them on 26.12.1985 and  02.1.1986. 3)      That according to Land Disposal Rules,  1964, every joint Khata Holder is entitled  for allotment of 500-500 sq. yards plot  according to which all the five applicants are  entitled to have 500-500 sq. yard plot each.

Sd/- President Improvement Trust                                                             Ludhiana                                                             19.8.94"     

4.      Basing their claim on this letter the respondents filed Civil Writ  Petition No. 13980 of 1994 seeking its implementation and inter alia praying  for allotment of five separate plots.   This writ petition was disposed of by a  Division Bench on 30.9.1994 without issuing notice to the respondents (the  appellant herein) by observing thus:

"The respondents are directed to decide the  representation of the petitioners by passing a  speaking order.  In case the petitioners are found  entitled to the allotment of plot(s) in accordance  with the rules/regulations being ’displaced  persons’, appropriate relief may be granted to  them.  The respondents shall ensure that if the  petitioners are entitled to the allotment of plot(s),  the same would be allotted irrespective of fact  whether the allotment has already been made or  not keeping in view the availability of plot as  today.

With the said observations, the writ petition  is disposed of."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

5.      On 6.10.1994, respondents filed a representation seeking for allotment  of five separate plots.  On 2.5.1995 the Government of Punjab issued a  notification vide memo No. 5/245/95 \026 2DGHII/6195 mentioning therein  that there was some ambiguity in the 1964 Rules regarding the number of  plots to be allotted to the joint holders of a Khata of the land acquired.  It  was clarified that only one plot could be allotted to the joint Khata holders of  the land acquired.  The relevant portion of the said notification reads:

"In 43 cases, more than one plot has been allotted  against a Joint-Khata.  These allotments have been  made under ’The Ludhiana Improvement Trust  Land Disposal Rules, 1964’, which are ambiguous  on this point.  Under the Punjab Town  Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment  of Plots) Rules, 1983 which are operative now,  only one plot can be allotted against a joint Khata.   Therefore, these allotments are not in accordance  with the rules and deserve to be cancelled by  following the procedure as laid down under the  Rules.  However, it has been noted that in cases, as  detailed in Annexure ’C’ where payments have  been fully/partly made, agreements etc. have also  been executed  and possession have also been  delivered, in such cases cancellation though  technically right would only be a paper  cancellation and lead to prolonged litigation.  As a  one time measure, therefore, such cases of  allotments of more than one plot to a joint khata  holder where possession has been delivered,  payments have been fully or partly accepted and  agreements etc. has been entered into, allottees  may be given an offer to have this allotment  regularised on payment of market price prevailing  on the date of allotment, which would be assessed  by the Deputy Commissioner.  This is only a one  time measure and would not be a precedent for  dealing with similar cases in future.  In the  remaining cases where no payment has been made  nor any document has been executed nor  possession delivered and allotments may be  cancelled by following procedure as laid down  under the rules."                                 [Emphasis supplied]

6.      The appellant did not accede to the request made by the respondents  for allotment of five separate plots to them.  According to the appellant  under the Scheme and the Rules the respondents were entitled to get one flat  allotted to them and not flats/plots, as claimed by them as no plots had been  carved out under the scheme .    

7.      On 29.8.1995 respondents filed  contempt petition No. CCOP No. 991  of 1995 against Surinder Aggarwal, the then Chairman of the appellant  Trust.  Contempt Petition was disposed of on 13.2.1997.  Respondent  Chairman of the Trust was discharged of the allegation made against him by  observing that the respondent had already accepted the position taken by the  writ petitioners (Respondents herein) that they were entitled to the allotment  of five plots in lieu of land acquired by his letter dated 19.8.1994.  Whatever  was possible had already been done by the Chairman in compliance with the  directions issued by the High Court by its order dated 30.9.1994 in C.W.P.  No. 13980 of 1994.  In the body of the order the learned Single Judge  recorded a finding that the trust by its letter No. LIT \026 7059 dated 19.8.1994,   has admitted that the respondents were entitled to the plots in lieu of the land  acquired by the Trust.  It was held:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

"I find that the Trust vide letter No. LIT-7058  dated 9.8.1994 (sic) addressed to the Government  of Punjab admitted and accepted the position that  petitioners are entitled to five plots in lieu of their  land acquired by the Trust. "

In the concluding portion the learned Single Judge held:

"If the petitioners are still aggrieved of the action  of the Trust or the action of the present Chairman  of the Trust that depsite their entitlement in regard  to allotment of plot(s) they are not being allotted  the same, they shall be at liberty to proceed against  the Trust or the present Chairman in accordance  with law."

8.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid two findings recorded by the learned  Single Judge the present appeal has been filed.  According to the appellant  the learned Single Judge gravely erred in recording the above said two  findings.  Trust had neither accepted nor endorsed the claim of the  respondents that they were entitled to five separate plots in lieu of the land  acquired from them. That the letter of the Chairman dated 19.8.1994 was  prior in time to the directions issued by the High Court on 30.9.1994 in  C.W.P. No. 13980 of 1994.  The letter written prior to the directions issued  on 30.9.1994 could not be made the basis for recording a finding that the  Trust had accepted or endorsed the claim of the respondents for allotment of  one plot each of the five joint holders of the Khata of the land acquired.   

9.      As against this the  stand taken by the respondents is that their case  would not be governed either by the Rules of 1983 or by the instructions  issued by the Government on 7.1.1995.  According to them their claim was  to be determined in accordance with 1964 Rules and since the Chairman of  the Trust in response to a letter written by the Government had accepted that  each of the joint holder in the joint Khata was entitled to the allotment of a  separate plot they had become entitled to the allotment of five plots.

10.     Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.  The record has  been perused.   

11.     We find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the  appellant. Letter dated 19.8.1994  could not be taken as a decision of the  Trust to allot one plot to each of the joint holder in a Khata.  This letter was  written by the Chairman of the Trust in response to a query made by the  State Government.  Based on this letter Civil writ petition No. C.W.P. 13980  of 1994 was filed in the High Court seeking a mandamus directing the  respondents to allot five plots (one each to the five joint Khata holders).  The  Division Bench without issuing notice to the respondents in the High Court  issued a direction to the appellant Trust to decide the representation of the  respondents and if found entitled  to the allotment of the plots, then, they be  allotted plots keeping in view the availability of the plots as on the date of  the passing of the order.  It was conceded by the counsel for the parties  that  the representation filed by the respondents has not been decided. Aggrieved  against this inaction of the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, petition  under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  was filed for taking suitable action  under the Act against the Chairman of the Trust.  Learned Single Judge  exonerated the Chairman of the Trust of the charge  leveled against him but  proceeded to record findings on merits regarding the entitlement of the  respondents to get the plots and reserving liberty with them to proceed  against the Trust or the present Chairman for not allotting plots to them  despite their entitlement in accordance with law. "Civil Contempt" means  wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other  process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.  The  appellant Trust and the Chairman were exonerated of the charge of wilful

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

disobedience of the directions issued by the High Court.  On the recording of  this finding the learned Single Judge hearing the contempt petition should  have closed the matter but instead of doing that the learned Single Judge  proceeded to decide the rights of the parties as if he was hearing the writ  petition.

12.     Letter dated 19.8.1994 written by the Chairman was prior in time to  the order passed on 30.9.1994 in the writ petition. In fact, the letter dated  19.8.1994 was the  basis on which the writ petition was filed in the High  Court for issuance of a mandamus to direct the Trust to allot one plot to each  of the holders of the joint Khata.  The Division Bench while disposing of the  writ petition did not deem it appropriate to issue a mandamus as prayed for  but instead directed the Trust to decide the representation and allot the plots  if found entitled subject to the availability of the plots as on the date of the  passing of the order.  The entitlement of the respondents to get plots was not  determined.   The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge hearing the  contempt petition that the entitlement of the respondents for allotment of  plots had already been decided is without any basis.  The liberty reserved  with the respondents to proceed against the Trust or the new Chairman for  not allotting the plots despite their entitlement to get the plots is based on  wrong assumption of the fact that the Trust had endorsed the claim of the  respondents to get five plots being the holders of joint Khata  

13.     Correspondence exchanged between the State Government and the  Chairman of the Improvement Trust could not be treated as a decision taken  by the Trust to allot five plots to the respondents.   Even according to the  1964  Rules  (Rule 6) the Chairman of the Trust could sell the plots subject  to confirmation by the Trust.  Trust has not taken any decision so far.  The  Scheme prepared for development of 8.4 acres of land acquired for the  construction of four storeyed flats has not been placed on record. While  deciding the representation a host of questions would arise including (i)  whether the application filed by the respondents in the year 1988 was within  time?; (ii)  whether the respondents would be entitled to plots or flats?; (iii)  whether they would be entitled to one plot/flat being the joint holders of the  Khata or to separate plots/flats (one each) as claimed by them?; (iv) whether  any applications were invited by the Trust from the Local displaced persons  in accordance with the 1964 Rules? (v) whether the respondents had put in  their claim in response to the said application?; (vi) As to which of the Rules  of 1964, 1975 or 1983 would apply as respondents had filed the  representation in the month of 1988 for the first time?; (vii) what would be  the effect of the  clarificatory notification issued by the Government on  7.1.1995 stating therein that co-sharers of the joint khata of the land acquired  would be entitled to get one plot only and not separate plots to each of the  co-sharers and  (viii)  availability of the plot/flat as on the date of the passing  of order.

14.     For the reasons stated above, it is held that that learned Single Judge  erred in holding that the Improvement Trust had either accepted or endorsed  the claim of the respondents for allotment of  separate plots to each of the  joint holders of the khata of the land acquired.  Learned Single Judge further  erred in holding that the respondents were at liberty to proceed against the  Trust or the present Chairman in accordance with law in case plots were not  allotted despite their entitlement to the allotment of plots.

15.     For the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the High Court  which are reproduced in paragraph 7 are set aside and appeal is allowed to  that extent.  Parties shall bear their own costs.