Judgment:
N.K. Kapoor, J.
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. Plaintiff based his claim on the sale deed executed in his favour for allotment of a plot measuring 10 marlas claiming himself to be a local displaced person. According to the plaintiff he was entitled for allotment of a plot but his claim had been declined for no justifiable reason thereby compelling him to seek the assistance of the Court.
4. 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 defendantNo. 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 defendantNo. 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.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the allotment of plot as a local displaced person? OPP.
2) Whether the defendant No.2 has not been properly sued? OPD
3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by this act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD
7) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
8) Relief.
6. Issues No. 1 and 4 were taken up together. The Court came to the conclusion that since there is no material on record that this Scheme had been framed under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951, so a person cannot be termed to be a local displaced person. Besides it, the Scheme was notified under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act on 30.9.1974 whereas the plaintiff purchased the land in dispute on 25.4.1980 and so the plaintiff was not the owner of the property which was acquired by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust two years immediately before the first publication of the Scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. This way too, he does not falls within the definition of a local displaced person as per Rules-Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975. Even the plaintiffs plea that he is entitled to plot under Section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was repelled holding that the same pertains to re-housing Scheme and since there did not exist any structure upon the land acquired the plaintiff cannot be allotted plot under Section 27 of the Act as well.
7. Issued No. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were not pressed and so were decided against the party upon whom the onus to prove these issued lays. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
8. The lower appellate Court again examined the matter on facts as well as law. Making reference to Rule 6.2 of the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954, it was observed that the land comprised in the Scheme of the Improvement Trust in the first instance is to be offered to a local displaced person. As per definition of local displaced person, as contained in notification dated 18.9.1975, the same defines local displaced person as 'a person who is owner of a property acquired by the Trust for the execution of the Scheme and he has been such an owner for a continuous period of two years immediately before the announcement of the Scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,' Examining on facts the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff infact purchased 1 kanal of land vide registered sale deed dated 30.3.1973 and it is thereafter that he filed an application to the Trust on 25.4.1980 for allotment of a plot in terms of the Rules. So, the Court held that as in the instant case the award was announced on 3.8.1976 and the possession of land was taken on 17.7.1979 long after the plaintiff had acquired right for an allotment of a plot in terms of Scheme/Rules in view of sale deed dated 30.3.1973. Thus, mere awarding of compensation and its acceptance or delay in approaching the Court is by itself no ground to decline the relief for which the plaintiff is entitled. In addition thereto the Court placed reliance upon the decision in Northern Carriers Pvt. Ltd., v. Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 282, a case pertaining to Jalandhar Improvement Trust, and accordingly came to the conclusion that appeal deserves to be accepted. So, appeal was accepted thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
9. During the pendency of the appeal plaintiff-the respondent has filed an application under 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead additional evidence in respect of allotment of a plot to one Smt. Prem Lata treating to be a displaced person whose land was acquired in the same Scheme by the appellant-Trust. In addition thereto, the plaintiff sought permission to place on record the judgments and decree in civil suit No. 38 of 1988 (Ravinder Singh v. J.I.T., Jalandhar), civil Suit No. 35 of 1988 (Shaminder Singh v. J.I.T., Jalandhar) and suit bearing No. 43 of 1988 (Jit Kaur v. J.I.T.), all decided on 5.2.1988. According to the applicant he had no knowledge of the decrees suffered by the Improvement Trust and so has sought the permission to adduce these documents on record. According to the applicant in each one of these cases the land of the plaintiffs too was acquired in the same Scheme and in each one of these cases they have been taken to be displaced persons. This application for additional evidence was ordered to be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal.
10. Counsel for the Improvement Trust in all fairness concedes that in each one of the these cases Trust has conceded the claim set up by the plaintiffs. He, however, has stated that appropriate action is contemplated against the erring official and infact necessary steps have already been initiated for getting rid of these collusive decrees. Since the counsel for the Improvement Trust has admitted the sufferance of decrees in favour of certain persons these documents are permitted to be taken on record and read in evidence as exhibits PX, PY and PZ.
11. On the merit of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant argued that plaintiff claims allotment of a plot on the ground that he is a local displaced person under the Rules and so it was incumbent upon him to prove the existence of Rules entitling him to allotment of a plot. According to the counsel, admittedly, a development Scheme was conceived and land acquired vide notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act on 30.9.1974 (for development of 110 acres of land). At that particular time there did not exist any such Rules entitling the plaintiff for allotment of plot. Plaintiffs case does not fall under the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954 nor the same can be examined under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 and so in the absence of Rules the lower appellate Court has erred in law in treating the plaintiff to be a local displaced person and thereafter granting the relief sought. Elaborating, the counsel argued that a local displaced person under Rules of 1954 is a person whose property had been acquired by the Trust for execution of the Scheme under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 i.e. to say unless a Scheme is conceived and executed under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 such a person cannot be termed to be a local displaced person. Similarly, under 1975 rules a person before he can be treated to be a local displaced person has to prove on record that he remained owner of the property for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication Of the Scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Act. As the plaintiff does not satisfy any of the conditions in these Rules the relief granted by the lower appellate Court is wholly un-justified and so the judgment and decree deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. According to the counsel the lower appellate Court erred in law in taking support from the view taken by the apex Court in Northern Carriers Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra). According to the counsel, there is no reference in the judgment to the Rules of 1954 or of 1975 and any such decision of the apex Court cannot be taken to be a binding under Article 141 of Constitution of India.
12. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that it has been the consistent practice of the Improvement Trust to treat all such persons whose land has been acquired under one Scheme or the other to be a local displaced person. In-fact, from the very inception of setting up of the Improvement Trust at Jalandhar under all such Schemes each one of the person whose land had been acquired for a development Scheme had been offered a plot. Precisely this aspect was kept in view by the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court while granting the relief to a claimant. Precisely for this reason the Improvement Trust has been acceding to the claim of various such person with or without filing of a suit. In support of the aforesaid submissions the counsel made reference to the decrees suffered by the Improvement Trust in favour of various persons whose land too had been acquired in respect of the same claim. With these broad averments the counsel argued that there is no reason to discriminate the case of the plaintiff and he is entitled to an equal treatment like others. Otherwise too, since the plaintiff became owner on the basis of sale deed of 1973 whereas the land was acquired in the year 1974 and the possession of the same was taken some time in the year 1979 as per definition of a local displaced person as given in Rules of 1975 plaintiff falls within the ambit of a local displaced person and so has rightly been taken to be so by the lower appellate Court. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the apex Court in Northern Carriers Pvt. Ltd's case (supra).
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the judgments of the Courts below as well as other documents including the Rules framed by the Improvement Trust from time to time. In this bunch of cases Jalandhar Improvement Trust has acquired land for development Scheme at various times Each time the notification was issued under Section 36 of the Act and after evaluating the property the award was announced and thereafter the possession had been taken. Under Section 73 of the Punjab Improvement Act State Government has powers to make rules which are consistent with the Act. Any rule so framed by the State Government becomes applicable to all Trusts or any Trust. Under Section 73 Clause (1) Sub-clause (xiii) State Government has powers to frame Rules for guidance of trust and public officers in all matters connected with carrying out of the provisions of this Act. Similarly, under Section 74 Sub-clause (viii) every trust with the previous sanction of the State Government can make rules consistent with the Act for carrying out the purposes of the Act provided such rules are consistent with any rules framed by the State Government under this Act. Rules framed in the years 1954, 1975 and 1983 are under Sections 73/74 of the Town Improvement Act. Under Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954 a 'Local Displaced Person' is defined as:-
'Local Displaced person:- means a person whose property has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of a Scheme under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951.'
Under Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975,a 'Local Displaced Person' is defined as:-
'Local Displaced Person:- means a person who is the owner of property acquired by the Trust for the execution of a Scheme and has been such owner for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of the Scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.'
Similarly, under the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, a 'Local Displaced Person' is defined as:-
'Local Displaced person' means a person who is the owner of any land acquired by the Trust for the execution of any scheme under the Act and who has been such owner for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of such scheme by the Trust under Section 36.'
14. Under Rules of 1954 a person is deemed to be a local displaced person whose property had been acquired by the Trust for execution of a scheme. Under Rules of 1975 a person is considered to be a local displaced person whose land had been acquired under a scheme but he has to be an owner for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of the Scheme under Section 36 of the Act. To the similar effect is the definition under Rules of 1983. Similarly, under each one of the these rules a local displaced person has been given precedence over other preferential claimants. Under Rule 6 Sub-clause 2 of the 1954 Rules the following categories are to be offered plots at the reserved price before the remaining are released for sale to the general public:-
'(i) Local displaced person;
(ii) claimants of allotable acquired evacuee properties;
(iii) members of Armed Forces;
(iv) displaced persons from West Pakistan who in their own name or in the name of their husbands/wives or dependent children do not own a building or building site in India;
(v) members of a registered Co-operative House Building Societies; and
(vi) Government employees and employees of the Local Bodies.'
Similarly, under Rules of 1973 as per Rule 7 Sub-clause (ii) a local displaced person is entitled to allotment of a plot upto the size of 500 Sq. Yds. on free hold basis on reserve price calculated on the basis of the formula as given in the annexure. Similarly, under 1983 Rules as per Rule 4 Sub-clause (2) a local displaced person is entitled for allotment of a residential plot on reserve sale price in accordance with the criteria laid down in these Rules. So, under each one of these Rules a local displaced person has been given preference for allotment of a residential plot at a reserve price to be calculated as per formula laid down in these Rules. Thus, it can be inferred that the authorities during all these years intended to accommodate such displaced persons by allotting them a residential plot in the development scheme at a reserve price.
15. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any scheme had been framed under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951, and so reference by the counsel for the appellant to the provisions of Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 is whollymisplaced, thus, the question as to whether in the absence of a specific Rule persons whose lands have been acquired under a development Scheme are entitled to allotment of a residential plot on a preferential basis and at a reserve price is the sole question which has been seriously contested.
16. Plaintiff while claiming a plot terming him to be a local displaced person has made reference to the letter dated 31.8.1981 written by defendantNo. 1 to defendant No. 2 to allot plots to the local displaced persons according to rules. To this specific averment of the plaintiff no definite stand has Been taken by the answering defendant. All that has been stated is that clarification of letter dated 31.8.1981 has been sought from the Government of Punjab but same has not been received so far. Even the other averment of the plaintiff that a number of persons have been allotted plot who had an identical claim as set up by the plaintiff has been evasively replied. These pleadings of the parties coupled with the certified copies of some of the judgments/decrees now permitted to be adduced by way of additional evidence (factum of decrees admitted by the counsel for the appellant) lead to the only conclusion that it has been also a consistent practice of the Jalandhar Improvement Trust to allot a plot to each one of the claimant whose land had been acquired under one or the other Scheme. Thus, even in the absence of Rules it would be appropriate to infer that the practice of allotting a residential plot to such like claimants is being consistently followed over a number of years.
17. This matter can be examined from another angle also. Under 1954 Rules as and when somebody's property had been acquired he has been made entitled to allotment of a residential plot. Similar is the provision in the Rules of 1975 as well as of 1983. Perhaps for these reasons that it was argued by Dr. Chitale in Northern Carriers Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) that whenever land of anyone was acquired for the purpose of scheme, each such owner, whose land was acquired, was allotted one plot measuring 1 Kanal at reserved price. The Hon'ble Judges of the apex Court found substance in this contention of the counsel for the petitioner as well as found no ground justifying a different treatment from others and so ordered for allotment of a plot at a reserved price. There is no denying the fact that the Court did not thought it appropriate to refer to scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the precise reason that the emphatic assertion made by the petitioner was infact accepted by the counsel for the Jalandhar Improvement Trust. It is worth noticing that land was acquired under a notification issued under Section 36 of the Act sometime in the year 1966 and the award was announced on October 5, 1972. Following the decision of the apex Court, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff cannot be treated differently from persons similarly situated and since almost each one of the such claimants had been allotted a residential plot at a reserved price either directly or through the intervention of the Court the lower appellate Court rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiff as prayed for. I find no substance in the plea of the counsel for the appellant that the decision given in the judgment of the apex Court cited above has no binding force under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Even obiter dicta of Supreme Court of India are entitled to a considerable weight. Viewed in the context of the case it can be said without any hesitation (especially when the case before the apex Court too pertained to Jalandhar Improvement Trust) that the decision rendered in the aforesaid case is infact a decision on merit and so estops the Improvement Trust from challenging the binding effect of the earlier decision.
18. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.
19. In view of my aforesaid decision the appeal/cross objections filed by the Improvement Trust are dismissed whereas the appeals filed by the plaintiffs (Claimants) are accepted as prayed for. Cross objections field by the plaintiffs claiming interest on the amount deposited as earnest money is wholly misconceived as no issue had been claimed and accordingly rejected.
No order as to costs.