M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment of the District Judge, Gurdaspur, who has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs while accepting the appeal of the defendant-respondent Improvement Trust, Batala.
2. Facts in brief are that Madan Lal father of the plaintiff-appellants was owner of 7 Kanal 7 marlas of land which was acquired by the defendant-respondent Trust in the year 1975. The Trust was to execute a scheme known as Shastri Nagar Scheme for establishing residential-cum-commercial colony. The award was announced on 18.8.1982. No allotment of plot was made to the plaintiff-appellants or their father who was the owner of the acquired land on the ground that they or their father was a Local Displaced Persons under the rules known as Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, (for brevity 1975 Rules). However, first time the application was filed by the plaintiff-appellants on 3.3.1992 asserting their right of allotment of a plot as a Local Displaced Person. The application could not be considered because according to the defendant-respondent the right under 1975 rules stood extinguished. The defendant-respondent further asserted that the new Rules known as Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (for brevity 1983 Rules), had come into existence and the 1975 Rules were repealed. Under the new rules the filing of the application and deposit of some amount as Local Displaced Person was made mandatory. The application is also required to be filed according to Rule 4(2) of the 1983 Rules within a period of three years. Rule 11(4) also deals with those applications which were pending belonging to the cases, in which the land had been acquired earlier to the enforcement of 1983 rules.
3. The Civil Judge decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.1997 by holding that 1975 Rules were applicable and no application was required to be filed under 1975 Rules. The Civil Judge placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of Purshotam Dass v. State of Punjab, (1996-3)114 P.L.R. 62 and Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 508. However, learned District Judge came to the conclusion that 1975 Rules would not govern the case of the plaintiff-appellants and the 1983 Rules would apply. Relying on Rules 11(4) and 16 of the 1983 Rules, the learned District Judge held as under-
'A very perusal of Rule 16 and Rule 11(4) of the 1983 rules reveals that no allotment as per 1975 Rules could be made after corning into foce of 1983 Rules and that for the scheme for which the land was acquired prior to 1983, any person whose application for allotment of any plot or multistoried house was pending, was required to apply afresh for allotment of residential house or multistoried house as the case may be in form B with the requisite deposit as required under Rule 11(3) of the 1983 Rules. Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs could not contend that any such application was filed. A combined reading of Rule 2 and Rule 11(4) of the 1983 rules makes it clear that the application required to be filed by the persons under Rule 11(4) was to be filed within a period of three years from the date of publication of 3983 rules. Said rules were published vide Punjab Govt. notification No. GSR-99/PA-4/22/ S-73/83 dated 22.12.1983 and in the present case also the application was not filed within that span of time and it was filed only on 3.3.1992 and that too without the requisite deposit.'
4. The learned District Judge also found that the judgments in the case of Jagdish Rai (supra) and Purshotam Dass (supra) were inapplicable because there was no delay either in filing of application along with adequate deposit in those cases.
5. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has argued that it was the duty of the defendant-respondent Trust to allot a plot to the plaintiff-appellants because no application was required to be filed under the 1975 Rules. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement made by Jagmohan Singh DW1, Assistant of the Improvement Trust, where the witness has stated that number of persons were allotted the plot without filing of any application by them. The statement of DW1 has been referred by the learned Civil Judge in para 7 while discussing the evidence on issue No. 2. The learned counsel has further submitted that plots have been allotted by the defendant-respondent Trust, even after 1982 and therefore, no discrimination can be practised as far as the right of the plaintiff-appellants, under 1975 Rules for allotment of the plot, is concerned. The learned counsel has urged that the plaintiff-appellant fall within the definition of Local Displaced Persons as given in Rule 7 of the 1975 Rules.
6. Sh. H.S. Bakshi, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent Trust has argued that no allotment could be made under the 1975 Rules because after the enforcement of 1983 Rules on 22.12.1983, the 1975 Rules have been repleaded. Accordingly to the learned counsel even the pending applications are required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule 4 of Rule 11 read with Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of 1983 Rules. The leaned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 295 (S.C.) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheowanti v. State of Punjab, (2001-3)129 P.L.R. 761 and argued that no equitable or legal right would flow to the plaintiff-appellants after they had failed to assert their right within reasonable time. The learned counsel has further urged by referring to para 12 of the judgment in Sampuran Singh's case, (supra) that even if an allotment has been made illegally after the enforcement of the 1983 Rules, no inabienable or vested rights would accrue to the plaintiff-appellants because if once an illegal act has been done, the Courts cannot direct the repetition of the same illegal act.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments passed by both the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that this appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. Rules 2, 4(2), 9, 10, 11 (3), 11(4) and 16 of the 1983 Rules read as under:-
'2. Definitions.- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,-
(d) '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;
4. Reservation of residential plots and multi-storyed- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10, residential plots and multi-storyed houses shall be reserved for allotment to the following categories of persons to the extent specified against each.-
(2) A local displaced person shall be allotted a residential plot on reserve sale price in accordance with the following criteria; provided he applies for such allotment in Form A within a period of three years from the date of taking over the possession of his land acquired by the Trust.-
(i)
If the area of land acquired is not less than 1/2 acre and isnot more than one acre or if the land acquired, consists or a dwelling uniteven though it is less than 1/2 acre;
100 Square Yards.
(ii)
If the area of land acquired exceeds one acre but does notexceed two acres;
200, Square Yards.
(iii)
If the area of land acquired exceeds two acres but does notexceed three acres;
300 Square Yards.
(iv)
If the area of land acquired exceeds three acres but does notexceed five acres;
400 Square Yards.
(v)
If the area of land acquired exceeds five acres
500 Square Yards
9. Grouping for the purpose of allotment.- The residential plots and multi-storeyed houses shall be grouped as under for the purpose of allotment:-
Serial Group No.
Area of the plot of Category of house
Percentageof the total area reserved for residential plots and houses.
1. GroupI
500 SquareYards
121/2 percent
2. GroupII
400 SquareYards
121/2 percent
3. GroupIII
300 SquareYards
10 percent
4. GroupIV
250 SquareYards
10 percent
5. GroupV
200 SquareYards
10 percent
6. GroupVI
150 SquareYards
121/2 percent
7. GroupVII
100 SquareYards
121/2 percent
8. GroupVIII
Multi-storeyedhouses
20 percent
10. Eligibility for allotment.- (1) Persons having gross annual income indicated be low against each group shall be eligible for allotment of residential plots of that group.-
Group of houses Gross Annual incomeGroup I, II and III Exceeding twenty five thousand rupees.Group IV Exceeding eigtheen thousand rupees, but notexceeding twenty five thousand rupees.Group V Exceeding twelve thousand rupees, but notexceeding eighteen thousand rupees.Group VI Exceeding eight thousand rupees, but notexceeding twelve thousand rupees.Group VII Not exceeding eight thousand rupees: [Provided that the income criteria for eligibility for allotment of residential plots shall not be applicable in the case of Non-Residential Indian in respect of the resential plots reserved for them under the rules.]
(2) Persons having gross monthly income as indicated below against eachcategory of multi-storyed shall be eligible for a allotment of that category of houses:-
Category of houses Gross monthly incomeLow Income Group Houses . Not exceeding eight hundred rupeesMiddle Income Group Houses Exceeding eight hundred rupees, but notexceeding one thousand and eight hundred rupees.Higher income Group Houses Exceeding one thousand and eight hundredrupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1) and (2) no person shall be eligible for allotment of a residential plot or multi-storyed house who or whose spouse jointly or severally owns a residential plot or house other than an ancestral house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any Urban Estate declared as such under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 or in any area covered under a scheme framed under the Act or at Panchkula in the State of Haryana or who being owner as such has disposed of the residential plot or house before or after the commencement or these rules.
11. Manner of allotment:- Every Trust shall invite applications for allotment or residential plots or multi-storeyed houses by the dates to be specified in the notice to be published in the newspapers widely circulated in the locality for this purpose.
(2) Every intending purchaser shall make application to the concerned Trust in Form B by the date specified in the notice alongwith an affidavit in Form 'C' to the effect that he fulfills the conditions of eligibility under Rule IV.
(3) No application made under Sub-rule (2) shall be valid unless accompanied by a bank draft in favour of the Trust in token of earnest money as under:-
Area of plot Amount of earnest money500 Square Yards Rs. 10,000400 Square Yards Rs. 8,000300 Square Yards Rs. 6,000250 Square Yards Rs. 5,000200 Square Yards Rs. 4,000150 Square Yards Rs. 3,000100 Square Yards Rs. 1,000 Provided that an application for allotment of a multi-storeyed house shall be accompanied by a bank draft of the amount equivalent to 10 per cent to the estimated cost of such house.
4. Every person, whose application for allotment of a residential plot for multi-storeyed house is pending with any Trust on the commencement of these rules shall also be required to apply afresh for allotment of residential plot or multi-storeyed house, as the case may be, in Form 'B' in accordance with his eligibility as specified in Rule 10:
Provided that if such a person fails to so apply to the Trust within a period of three months from the date of notice under Sub-rule (1) within a period of three months from such commencement, whichever period is later he shall be considered for allotment of a residential plot or a multi-storeyed house for which he is eligible in accordance with the gross annual income or gross monthly income shown in the application already pending with the Trust.
16. Repeal and Savings.- (1) The Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 are hereby repealed:-
Provided that any order issued or any action taken under the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been issued or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules.
8. A perusal of the above rules shows that the plaintiff-appellants would be covered by the definition of expression Local Displaced Persons as given in Clause (d) of Section 2. Sub-rule 2 or Rule 4 would also show that a Local Displaced Persons is entitled to allotment of a residential plot on reserve sale price in accordance with the specified criteria and such a person is required to move an appropriate application in form A within a period of 3 years from the date of taking over possession of his land by the Trust. The applications which are already pending with any Trust on the commencement of 1983 Rules, were to be considered in accordance with Sub-rule 4 of Rule 11. The afore-mentioned rules provide for filing of fresh application for allotment of a residential plot or multi-storyed house in Form B in accordance with his eligibility as specified under Rule 10. It is, thus, obvious that eligibility for allotment has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 which provide for criteria of gross annual income in order to become eligible.
9. When the aforementioned rules are applied to the facts of the present case it becomes evident that applications for the first time for allotment of a residential plot was made by the plaintiff-appellants on 3.3.1992 which was not in accordance with 1983 Rules. It is no where disclosed as to how the plaintiff-appellants are covered by the 1983 rules. The whole case of the plaintiff-appellants is that they were entitled to automatic allotment of a plot being Local Displaced Persons, under the 1975 Rules. Admittedly, the land was acquired in 1975 and the award was announced on 18.8.1982. After a period of about 10 years, the application was filed. It is somewhat in similar circumstances that a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the claim of a writ petition where the writ petitioner has woken up after a delay of 18 years. In the case of Smt. Sheowanti, land was acquired in 1975 and the award was announced in the year 1980. The compensation was paid to the land owners in the year 1981. Sheowanti filed a writ petition in this Court in 1998 i.e., after a lapse of 18 years. Therefore, no relief could be given to Sheowanti by the Division Bench. Moreover, there is no grievance made by the plaintiff-appellants within reasonable period after the announcement of award. The first application has been made after about 10 years. In such circumstances, it cannot be argued that it was the duty of the Trust to allot plot to a Local Displaced Person.
10. The other argument of the plaintiff-appellants that some other persons have been allotted plot by the Trust without any application would not require any serious consideration. Firstly there is no evidence on record to show that any plot was allotted after 1992. The alleged allotment was on an order passed by the Civil Judge. Secondly, no equality could be claimed by the plaintiff-appellants in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Sampuran Singh's case (supra), holding that if any allotment has been made which is beyond the scope of the rules then such allotment would not create any right for claiming equality. The observation of their Lordships reads as under:-
'12. The High Court as well as the lower appellate Court also relied upon the fact that the Trust had made similar preferential allotments as local displaced person in favour of other persons. Therefore, the Courts below came to the conclusion that even the plaintiff-appellants were entitled to such allotment. In our opinion, before coming to this conclusion the Courts below should have first decided the question whether the allotment in favour of those persons was within the scope of the Rules applicable. If it was not within the scope of the Rules then even those allotments in favour of other persons will not create a right in the respondents to claim equality with them; may be, if the allotments were made wrongly in favour or those persons, the same may become liable for cancellation, if permissible in law, but that will not create an enforceable right in the respondents to claim similar wrongful allotments in their favour. In our opinion, even this ground relied upon by the High court as well as the lower appellate court is unsustainable. The court below next relied upon the fact that in regard to some of the respondents, the Trust itself at a point of time made allotments and accepted initial deposits towards the consideration of the plots which were subsequently cancelled. Based on those facts, the Courts below held that the Trust having once allotted the plots and having collected part of the consideration, it plots by the Trust is controlled by the statutory Rules. Any allotment contrary to those Rules will be against the law. Since the allotments made in favour of some of the respondents was based on wrong application of the reservation made for local displaced person those allotments were contrary to law. Hence, the principle of promissory/equitable estopple cannot be invoked to protect such illegal allotments. In the said view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgments and decrees impugned in these appeals.'
11. It is also pertinent to mention here that the judgments of this Court in the case of Purshotam Dass and Jagdish Rai would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff-appellants from the mischief of delay. In both those cases, allotment was made by the Trust promptly because the adequate amount was deposited. Those judgments have been rightly distinguished by the learned District Judge and the definition is well based. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.