JUDGMENT
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Pritam Singh instituted suit for permanent injunction against Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to be as Trust) restraining the latter from dispossessing him from land measuring 4 Bighas, 16 Biswas, 9 Biswansis as detailed in the heading of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Noor Bhaini, Tehsil and District Ludhiana per jamabandi for the year 1979-80. It is alleged in the plaint that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 4 Bighas, 16 Biswas, 9 Biswansis. Trust framed a scheme known as Model Town Extension Scheme No. 1, which was sanctioned by the Government vide Notification No. 2070-II-C-III-64/16894, dated 11-5-1964 for an area measuring 165 acres. This scheme comprised of the land of the revenue estates of villages Karabara, Piru Banda, Noor Bhaini and Bulara. Land measuring 40 Bighas, 4 Biswas, 11 Biswansis of the revenue estate of village Noor Bhaini was included in the Scheme. Out of that land measuring 40 B 4 B 11 B, land measuring 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 1 biswansi belonged to the Central Government. Only land measuringO bigha, 2 biswas, 6 biswansis belonged to the Municipal Committee. Trust was advised by the Land Acquisition Collector to acquire land belonging to the Central Government through negotiations with Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar and to take over the land of the Municipal Committee after issuing notice under Section 46 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. Trust did not acquire that land. Central Government transferred the land to different persons. Plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. He was allotted two plots Nos. 173 and 174 measuring 548-52 and 570 square yards vide allotment order dated 15-5-1971 in the scheme. Trust did not hand over possession of these plots to him. It was alleged in the plaint that scheme in Noor Bhaini area could not be legally executed by the Trust until the complete area comprised in the sanctioned scheme was acquired by the Trust. Land in suit was in possession of the plaintiff where he has installed tubewell. He has dwelling house in the land in suit. Plaintiff paid full price for the said plots No. 173 and 174. Defendant failed to hand over possession of the plots without acquisition of land measuring 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 1 biswansi which is now owned and possessed by different individuals and without being able to develop the area and without being able to hand over possession of plots No. 173 and 174 to the plaintiff, the officials of the Trust threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the land in suit.
2. Defendant-Trust contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that land in suit falls in the scheme and the award was passed. Trust took possession of the land after compensation was paid. Trust is owner in possession of the land in suit. It was for the defendant-Trust to see how the scheme was to be executed. Letter dated 15-7-1971 regarding allotment of plots was issued but the plaintiff failed to pay the full price and had not completed other formalities. As defendant-Trust is owner of the land in suit, the suit as such is not maintainable. It was urged that suit was bad for non-compliance of Section 98 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue’s were framed by the trial Court.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for on the allegations made in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether notice Under Section 98 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was necessary and that the suit is bad for non-issuance of the notice? OPD
3. Whether the suit in this form is not maintainable? OPD
4. Relief.
4. Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana vide order dated 16-8-1988 dismissed the plaintiffs suit, in view of his findings, that the award with respect to the suit property was given on 31-3-1965. Possession of the suit property was delivered to the Trust by Land Acquisition Collector. Plaintiff received compensation of the land acquired on 8-2-1966 and the plaintiff received the enhanced compensation also. Plaintiff also admitted the receipt of compensation from the Trust. It was found that no injunction could be granted to the plaintiff when he had received compensation for the land acquired and he had accepted the compensation. It was found that no relief could be granted to him with regard to plots No. 173 and 174 as he had not sought any declaration with regard to plots No. 173 and 174 alleged to have been allotted to him by the Improvement Trust. It was found that he had failed to establish his title with respect to these plots.
5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1988 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, plaintiff went in appeal. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 9-1-1998. It was found that acquisition was quashed only regarding land measuring 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 1 biswansi of village Noor Bhainl. So far as land measuring 4 bighas, 16 biswas, 9 biswansis is concerned, that was not included in the land qua which the acquisition was quashed and as such plaintiff could not draw any support from the judgment of C.W.P. No. 867 of 1984 Ex. DX. He could not claim to be owner of the land in suit as the same had been acquired according to the provisions of law. Award was given. Compensation was paid to him Possession was taken from him and the Trust was put in possession. It was found that plaintiff could have pursued the remedy available to him for getting possession of the plots Nos. 173 find 174 allotted to him. He could not resist the possession of the Trust qua land which had been duly acquired.
6. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff represented by his LRs came up in appeal to this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that C. W.Ps. No. 860 to 877 of 1984 were filed and acquisition grading the land was quashed. It was ob-served at pages 6 and 7 of judgment Ex. DX as follows :–
After considering the entire matter, I am of the considered view that these cases are fully covered by decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and there is no distinguishing feature. It is true that the award was given on 31st March, 1965 and if compensation had been fixed for the land In dispute, the petitioners would have had no case. A reading of the award shows that compensation was not determined for 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 6 biswansis, which includes the land in these writ petitions and the matter kept pending to be settled with the Central Government. For the substantial part of the remaining acquired land, award was given and payment was made to the landowners, whereafter the Trust took possession and carried out its scheme. However, so far as the aforesaid 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 6 biswansis, the allottees continued in occupation of the same and till the beginning of 1984, the Trust took no action to give award to pay compensation and to take possession of the land. Therefore, so far as 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 6 biswansis are concerned, which form the distinct part of the acquired land the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are fully applicable and the acquisition regarding this area cannot be allowed to stand and has to be quashed because on the basis of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Price which prevailed in 1960 is sought to be paid to the petitioners. The non-taking of action for nearly 24 years clearly shows, colourable exercise of authority by the Improvement Trust as also to peg down its price, which according to the Full Bench and the Division Bench judgments is not permissible and the acquisitions have been quashed on account of delay.”
9. It is, thus, clear that acquisition was quashed only regarding land measuring 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 6 biswansis of land which formed the distinct part of the acquired land. Land in suit was not part of that land. Land measuring 17bighas, 6biswas, 6biswansis bearing khasra Nos. 163/1, 168 min, 184, 186 min, 183 min, 191 to 193 min, 200 min 201 min to 207 min, 291/206/194/209/1, 209/2, 209/3, 209/5/3, 209/5/11, 209/5/6, 209/5/2, 209/5/1, 209/5/5 belongs to the Central Government. So far as land in suit is concerned, it bears khasra Nos. 207, 299/ 208, 230/208 and 209/6 Khata Khatauni No.169/262. Plaintiff could not claim to be owner of the land in suit as the same was acquired according to the provisions of law and its acquisition was not quashed by the decisions of the said writ petitions. Land in suit was acquired by the Trust. Award was given by Land Acquisition Collector, Harbans Lal, Kanungo D.W. 1 stated that possession of land in suit was taken on 8-2-1966. Ex. D.W. 1/1 is a copy of report of roznamcha Wakayati. On 8-2-1966, compensation was paid to Pritam Singh. Jagdish Singh D.W. 2, who is another official of the Trust, stated that land in suitis part of sanctioned scheme. Possession of land in suit was taken. Plots were carved out and allotted. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that land in suit vested in Central Government. It could not be acquired. He submitted that notification regarding acquisition of land measuring 17 bighas, 6 bighas, 1 biswansis of village Noor Bhaini vesting in Central Govt. was quashed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 867 of 1984 and, therefore, the land in suit could not be acquired. He submitted that possession of the land in suit was not taken from the appellant and, therefore, land in suit did not vest in the Trust. Trust framed development scheme known as Model Town Extension Part 1 under Section 98 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. Government sanctioned the scheme vide Notification dated 11-5-1964 for an area measuring 165 acre. Award dated 31-3-1965 was passed regarding land measuring 40 bighas, 4 biswas, 11 biswansis including the land in suit. Award did not cover land measuring 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 6 biswansis ibid as it belongs to the Central Government. Land Acquisition Collector advised the Trust to acquire this land by negotiations with the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar. This land was allotted to different individuals by the Rehabilitation Department C.W.Ps. No. 860 to 877 of 1984 were filed and acquisition regarding the said land was quashed. It would bear repetition that quashing of the acquisition in C.W.Ps. Nos. 860 to 877 of 1984 did not concern the land in suit. Land in suit was acquired according to the provisions of law. Plaintiff was recorded owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record at the time when it was acquired.
10. There was no equity in favour of the plaintiff when he had been paid compensation and he had accepted the compensation and possession had been taken from him. Assuming that he had re-entered the land, he was not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. After he had received compensation, his re-entry into land will be viewed as an act of trespass on his part. Plots were allotted to the plaintiff by the Trust and he paid price thereof vide receipts Exs. P2 to P35 to the Trust. Plaintiff could pursue his remedy so far as these plots are concerned but he had no right to thwart possession of the Trust In lieu of these plots. In notice Ex. P38 issued on his behalf, he had himself admitted that the land in suit had been acquired by the Trust. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he should be given possession of plots No. 173 and 174 in this scheme when land measuring 4 bighas, 16 biswas, 9 biswans is belonging to him had been acquired by the Trust. It was submitted that he is a “local displaced person” as defined in Rule 2{a) of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983. Rule 2(d) of the Rules defines “Local displaced persons” as meaning 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. Rule 4(2) of the Rules says that “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 100 square yards less than 1/2 acre and is not more than one, acre or if the land acquired consists of a dwelling unit even though it is less than 1/2 acre;
(ii) If the area of land acquired exceeds 200 square yards one acre but does not exceed two acres;
(iii) If the area of land acquired exceeds 300 square yards two acres but does not exceed three acres;
(iv) If the area of land acquired exceeds 400 square yards three acres but does not exceed five acres;
(v) If the area of land acquired exceeds 300 square yards five acres;
11. Provided that the local displaced persons having a joint khata being co-sharers shall be allotted only one plot taking into account the whole or their joint land acquired.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in case of the appellants this Rule should have been given effect to by the Trust. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that possession of plots No. 173 and 174 should have been given to the plaintiff as being local dispIaced person when he had been allotted these plots and when he had paid the price for these plots. In view of the fact that land in suit of which the plaintiff was owner, was acquired by the Trust for the Model Town Extension Scheme No. 1 for which, he had been paid compensation and of which possession had been taken from him by the Trust, he is not entitled to injunction. This appeal fails and is dismissed. Improvement Trust is, however, directed to treat the plaintiff as local displaced person and if possession of plots No. 173 and 174 cannot be given to him/his LRs., they be given some other plot/plots in this scheme if not in this scheme in some other scheme of the Trust on the price prevailing at the time of allotment being charged by the Trust.