JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and it was held that the respondent js entitled to the allotment of a plot measuring 1 kanal in the development scheme of 41.6 acres or in any other scheme of the Jalandhar Improvement Trust.
2. The land measuring 2 kanals 11 marls belonging to the plaintiff-respondent was acquired by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust for the development of 41.6 acres scheme. The scheme was for setting up of a vegetable market. On 18.3.1968, the scheme was duly sanctioned by the State Govt. under Section 42 of the Act. Thereafter, on 5.9.1971, the purpose of the scheme was changed from vegetable market to that of a commercial establishment. On 17.4.1979, the purpose of acquisition was again changed from commercial establishment to that of a residential area.
It is pertinent to mention here that the possession of the land of the plaintiff-respondent was also taken on 12.8.1978.
3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled for the allotment of a plot measuring 1 kanal in the development scheme of Jalandhar Improvement Trust, being a displaced person. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15.4.1985 held that the plaintiff-respondent is a local displaced person and is covered by the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and thus, as his land had been acquired by the Trust, therefore, he is entitled to be allotted one kanal plot.
4. The appellant-Jalandhar Improvement Trust filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 3.5.1986. It is against this judgment that the present appeal had beet) filed.
5. The question for determination js whether the plaintiff-respondent is a local dis-placed person and is. entitled to the allotment of a plpt under the 1954 Rules. The other question which arises in the present case is that whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a plot under utilisation of Land & Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975.
6. It is the admitted case of both the sides that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land which was acquired by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, he was the owner since prior to the year 1963. At the time of framing of the scheme and acquisition of land in 1963, 1954 Rules were in vogue. These rules were framed under Clause (viii) of Section 74 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Rule 2(b) defined the local displaced person as under;-
“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.
Sale of plots under the scheme framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act,
1922, is dealt with in Rule 6(2) which is as under:-
The land comprised in scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922,
shall in the first instance be offered to the following categories at the reserve price and
after meeting their demands, it shall be released for sale to general public.”
(i) Local Displaced Person;
(ii) ……..
The argument raised by the counsel for the Trust is that a local displaced person within the ambit of 1954 Rules is only that person whose property is acquired by the Trust under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951. According to the Counsel as the land of the plaintiff was not acquired under the aforesaid Act, therefore, 1954 rules will not have any application. A perusal of the Rule 6(1) which deals with the sale of land comprised in a scheme under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 and Rule 6(2), a local displaced person is entitled to be offered land at reserve price. The respondent was a locally displaced person and he was the owner of land prior to 1963 and on acquisition of his land, he was entitled to be allotted a plot under Rule 6(2) of the Punjab 1954 Rules.
7. The other argument raised by the Trust was that since 1975, Improvement Trust Rules have come into force which are regarding utilisation of land and allotment of plots by the Trust, therefore, the plaintiff would be governed by these rules and not 1954 Rules.
8. This argument is devoid of merit. At the time when the land of the plaintiff-respondent was acquired ‘1954 Rules’ were covering the filed. The amendment of Rules would not take away the right of the plaintiff-respondent under 1954 Rules. Even if it is taken for argument sake that ‘1975 Rules’ would be applicable still the plaintiff would be entitled to a plot because the only difference between 1975 and 1954 Rules is that as per ‘1954 Rules’, the plaintiff-respondent should be owner of the land at the time of its acquisition where as per ‘1975 Rules’, a person should be owner of land two years prior to its acquisition. As per plaintiff-respondent was owner of the land prior to 1963, therefore, under these rules, he would be entitled for the allotment of a plot.
In view of the above, I do not find any force in the arguments raised on behalf of
the trust. The findings of both the Courts below are, thus, upheld. The appeal is accord
ingly, dismissed.