Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1983 (PNJ)

Sushma Palta v. State of Punjab

2006-05-08

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, RANJIT SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT H.S. BEDI, ACJ. (ORAL) 1. This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos.751 of 1992 ( Sushma Palta and others v. State of Punjab and others) , 750 of 1992 Kamla Makhani & another v. State of Punjab & another), 1208 of 1992 ( Harinder Singh Chawla v. State of Punjab and another ), 1236 of 1991 ( Baldev Singh & others v. State of Punjab & another ), 1237 of 1991 ( Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others) and 1546 of 1991 (Smt.Poonam etc. v. State of Punjab etc. ). The facts are being taken from LPA No. 751 of 1992. 2. Land belonging to the writ petitioners or their predecessors was acquired for the Ajnala Road Development Expansion Scheme, which was notified under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) on 21.4.1972, followed by a notification under Section 41 on 19.2.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered his award on 4.5.1974 and the possession of the land was also taken on 14.5.1980. After the award of the Collector on 4.5.1974, the Improvement Trust (respondent No.2) issued notices inviting applications on prescribed forms for allotment of plots to local displaced persons under the Scheme. The appellants filed applications within time claiming that they were local displaced persons. Their applications were, however, rejected on which they filed several writ petitions in this court and at the time of the motion hearing, this Court directed that a plot be reserved for each of the petitioners, to be allotted to them in case they should succeed. 3. Before the learned Single Judge several issues were raised by the parties. The petitioners pleaded that as they were oustees under the Amritsar Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the’ 1951 Rules’), they were entitled to a plot each in the capacity of local displaced persons. 3. Before the learned Single Judge several issues were raised by the parties. The petitioners pleaded that as they were oustees under the Amritsar Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the’ 1951 Rules’), they were entitled to a plot each in the capacity of local displaced persons. The respondent-Trust, on the other hand, pleaded, inter alia, that some of the appellants were not the owners of the land at the time when the notification under Section 36 of the Act had been issued and that they had become owners thereafter either on the death of the original land owners or by purchase from the original land owners and only such applicants, who had been owners of the land for a continuous period of two years prior to the date of the publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act were entitled to allotment of plots and for this purpose, relied on the amended definition of the ‘local displaced persons’ given in Rule 2 (b) of the 1975 Rules. The learned Single Judge held that the 1975 Rule could not operate retrospectively and that the case of allotment of plots would be covered under the 1951 Rules and the case would have to be processed under the definition of ‘local displaced persons’ as given in these Rules. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that it appeared that after the Scheme had been published under Section 36 of the Act the land owners whose land had been acquired, had started transferring their lands to different persons with a view to enable each transferee to claim more plots whereas if the transferee had not been made, the transferor would have been entitled to only one plot. It was accordingly observed as under: “In other words, if the original land owner had not sold his land to different person, he would have been entitled to one plot in terms of Rule 6(2) but on transferring his land to different persons who may even be his own kith and kin, each transferee started claiming to be a ‘local displaced person’ so as to claim a plot separately which was contrary to the 1951 Rules. It was with a view to stop this mischief that the Trust amended the definition of ‘local displaced person’ in September 1974. It was with a view to stop this mischief that the Trust amended the definition of ‘local displaced person’ in September 1974. As already observed earlier, the 1951 Rules only required the Trust to offer not more than one plot to a person who was covered by rule 6(1) of the Rules but did not provide any criteria in regard to the size of the plot which was to be offered. The State Government in order to supplement the 1951 rules framed the 1975 rules providing for the criteria pertaining to saleable area as also the mode of utilization for purposes of allotment of residential plots. In the year 1983, the 1975 Rules were repealed and replaced by the 1983 rules which provide more detailed criteria in regard to the allotment of plots to ‘Local displaced person’ and others. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the writ petitioners that the relevant date to determine as to whether a person is an owner of the land within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the 1951 Rules so as to be entitled to claim an allotment of a plot is the one when he was divested of his ownership and possession of the land taken from him or at least it should be the date when the scheme was finally sanctioned on 19.2.1973. The argument is that till the possession was taken in pursuance of the sanctioned scheme, the person whose land had been acquired continued to be owner till then and had thus every right to transfer his land whether in parts or in whole. The contention put differently is that the petitioners were all owners of the land on the date when the scheme was sanctioned and published on 19.2.1973 under section 42 of the Act and since on that date it was their land which was being acquired by the Trust for the execution of the scheme, they are local displaced persons within the meaning of the term as defined in Rule 2(b) of the 1951 Rules and the amendment brought about in this definition in September, 1974 would not apply to their case. The contentions though seemingly plausible when examined in depth in the light of the objections of the 1951 rules read with the amendment brought about in September, 1974 have no substance. The contentions though seemingly plausible when examined in depth in the light of the objections of the 1951 rules read with the amendment brought about in September, 1974 have no substance. To decide whether the petitioners could be entitled to the allotment of a plot in terms of 1951 Rules, one will have to keep in view the purpose of the rules as well as the object for which the amendment was brought about. The primary and fore most task of a court in interpreting a statute or rule is to ascertain the intention of the legislature or the rule making authority, actual or impugned. Having ascertain the intention, the court must then strive to so interpret the rule as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment and for this purpose, where necessary the court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. In the words of justice Chinnappa Reddy in Girdhari Lal and sons v Balbir Nath AIR 1986 SC page 1490 “there need to be meek and mute submission to the plainess of the language. To avoid patent injustice anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be well justified in departing from the so called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word if necessary”. It is a known rule of interpretation that amendment of an earlier provision sometimes can be useful aid in construing the earlier provision even though such amendment is not given retrospective effect.” 4. The Court accordingly observed that the intention behind the 1951 Rules could be examined in the light of the amendment made in 1975 and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal’s case (supra), in which it has been observed that where the circumstances so warranted, the Court could not be a meek and mute spectator and must step forward to avoid patent injustice, the learned Single Judge finally observed as this: “I am of the view that only such persons who were the owners of the land on the date of the first publication of the schemes under Section 36 of the Act alone could “be termed as ‘local displaced persons. I am adding the words ‘on the first publication of the scheme under Section 36 of the Act’ in rule 2 (b) of the 1951 Rules as it stood, prior to its amendment, because any other inter-operation would frustrate the very purpose. “ 5. The learned Single Judge in the last portion of the judgment once again clarified that the 1975 Rules would operate from that date. The present appeals have been filed by the land owners, as the Improvement Trust has accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. Mr. M.L.Sarin, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, has raised only one argument before us. He has emphasized that though it was open to the court to give an interpretation keeping in view the intention behind the rule or statute, yet where the language of the rule was clear and explicit, an addition of words by the Court was clearly un-called for. He has also pointed out that the provisions of Section 51 of the Act had been mutatis mutandis made applicable to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 16 thereof, clearly provided that till the possession of the acquired land continued to be with the land owners it was open to them to transfer the land till the possession was taken. He has accordingly pointed out that the possession had been taken from the land owners for the first time in the year 1980 and that the learned Single Judge had in fact given a finding in favour of the appellants on this aspect as well. 7. Mr.Pardeep Bhandari, the learned counsel for the Improvement Trust, has, however, pointed out that a bare reading of Rule 2(b) of the 1951 Rules clearly envisaged a limitation of one year which ‘’Would apply to both tenants as well as the land owners and as many of the appellants had not been land owners for a period of one year, no benefit of the scheme could be given to them. In this respect, he has mentioned that the word’ or’ used in Rule 2(b) had to be read as word’ and’. He has also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Goodyear India Ltd.. a Public Limited Company. Ballabgarh and another v. The Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ballabgarh and another, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 379 in support of the latter argument. 8. He has also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Goodyear India Ltd.. a Public Limited Company. Ballabgarh and another v. The Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ballabgarh and another, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 379 in support of the latter argument. 8. It would be apparent that the entire matter would hinge on the definition of ‘local displaced persons’ given in Rule 2(b) and Rule 6 of the 1951 Rules. We reproduce Rules 2(b),. 6( 1) (i) and (ii) herein below: “2(b) Local displaced person means a person whose own property has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of the scheme or who had been a tenant of the property under the scheme for a period of not less than one year prior to the first publication of the scheme by the Trust and continued as such till that property was acquired by the Trust and includes a person who is a claimant of allotable acquired evacuee property coming within the scheme. “6(1) The land available for sale may, in the first place, be offered for sale to: (i) Departments of Punjab Govt.Local authorities and public undertakings, bodies of public utility project, bodies duly registered for public purpose or public, charitable and religious institutions, if any land is reserved for such purposes in the scheme; (ii) local displaced persons in the following order: (a) owner occupiers and occupier claimants of allot able acquired evacuee properties in whose favour allotment of such properties has actually been made by the Central Government; (b) Absentee landlords; ( c) Tenants in order of a maximum period of tenancy;” We also reproduce Rule 2(b) introduced in September 1974: “Means a person who is owner of a property acquired by the Trust for the execution of the 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, 1972.” 9. A bare reading of the rules reproduced above would show that before amendment there was no limitation prescribed with respect to the period of ownership of a property by an owner to make him fall within the definition of ‘local displaced persons’ and such a qualification had in fact been introduced by the 1974 Rules. A bare reading of the rules reproduced above would show that before amendment there was no limitation prescribed with respect to the period of ownership of a property by an owner to make him fall within the definition of ‘local displaced persons’ and such a qualification had in fact been introduced by the 1974 Rules. As already mentioned above, the learned Single Judge has held that the 1974 amendment would not operate in the present case as the acquisition had taken place in the year 1972, but observing that some transfers had taken place after 1972, the learned Single Judge has added the words “that only such persons who were the owners of the land on the date of the first publication of the Scheme under Section 36 of the Act alone could be termed as local displaced per-sons. “ We are of the opinion that it was not open to this Court to add any word to the Rules. We also observed that the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to the intention of the Legislature appears to be somewhat far-fetched. It would be apparent that the qualification of two years ownership appeared in the amendment of 1974. It is, therefore, obvious that the Legislature itself was aware that before amendment no limitation was provided and it was thought expedient to provide the same at that stage. 10. Mr. Bhandari has, however, emphasized that the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the 1974 rules were not applicable to the case, was erroneous. He has also pointed out that the interpretation put by the learned Single Judge on Rule 2(b) by the 1951 rules, was also wrong and the word ‘or’ was to be read as ‘and’. We, however, find no merit in this plea. Concededly the Improvement Trust has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge meaning thereby it has accepted the same without demur. We also find that the judgment in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) in the facts of the case would not be applicable. 11. We accordingly allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As the plots stand reserved in favour of the appellants for more than a decade and a half, the Improvement Trust will hand over the same to them as soon as possible. 11. We accordingly allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As the plots stand reserved in favour of the appellants for more than a decade and a half, the Improvement Trust will hand over the same to them as soon as possible. There would, however, be no order as to costs.