JudgmentJudgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7591 of 1998, 7978 of 1998, 7979 of 1998, 11332 of 1998, 5791 of 1999 and 5792 of 1999. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.7978 of 1998. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for allotment of one plot, measuring 500 sq.yards, being a local displaced person. She has put up her claim under the provisions of Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (1975 Rules). Admitted facts:- 3. On request made by respondent No.2, respondent No.l framed a Development Scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short the Act) on 8.8.1976, to acquire 256 acres of land, to develop residential colony known as Maharishi Balmiki Nagar. Final notice, to acquire land under Section 42 of the Act, was issued on 24.11.1978. To pay compensation, for the land acquired, award was passed on 12.6.1980. 4. It is an admitted fact that land of the petitioner and her cosharers, measuring about 26 kanals 17 marlas, was part of the above said acquisition. After passing of the award, compensation for the land was disbursed separately in favour of all the co-sharers. Amount of Rs.3835/- had fallen to the share of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 12.6.1981 (PI), respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to move an application for allotment of a plot, as a local displaced person, on or before 20.6.1981. She accordingly, moved an application and also deposited an amount of Rs.500/- towards earnest money, vide receipt dated 19.6.1981 (P2). Her application was not processed, despite requests made in that regard. Respondent No.2 vide a public notice, in newspaper Dainik Punjab Kesri Jalandhar dated 3.1.1998 asked the applicants, who wanted allotment of plots, being local displaced persons, to appear in the office of respondent No.2 on or before 16.1.1998. She appeared in the office of respondent No.2 and also moved an application stating that her application, earlier made was pending and that she had also deposited an amount of Rs.500/-, towards earnest money. Her application dated 16.1.1998 is available on record as Annexure P5. 5. Vide letter dated 29.1.1998 (P6),. she was again asked to appear in the office of respondent No.2, along with documents to show her ownership in the acquired land. Her application dated 16.1.1998 is available on record as Annexure P5. 5. Vide letter dated 29.1.1998 (P6),. she was again asked to appear in the office of respondent No.2, along with documents to show her ownership in the acquired land. She complied with the directions, however, thereafter, when nothing was done, she was compelled to file this writ petition. 6. Upon notice, reply has been filed by respondent No.2. Facts mentioned above, are admitted. However, averments of the petitioner have been opposed by stating that the she along with her co-sharers in the land acquired, was entitled to get only one plot as a local displaced person and because she has not applied jointly, along with other co-sharers, a plot cannot be allotted to her. It is further stated that as per Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1983 (1983 Rules), all the co-sharers in the acquired land, are entitled to get only one plot of the area, as mentioned in those Rules. 7. The petitioner, by filing a rejoinder to the written statement, filed by respondent No.2, categorically averred that in the Scheme, in question, in some cases, the respondent No.2 had allotted separate plots to all the co-sharers, in a piece of land, acquired by it. 8. In response to averment made by the petitioner, Mr.Brij Mohan Jhamb, the then Executive Officer of respondent No.2 filed his affidavit dated 5.8.2000. Paragraph No.2 of the affidavit reads thus:- "That the Govt. has imposed ban for allotment of plot to LDP in May 1991. The trust has allotted plots to local displaced persons in the concerned scheme i.e. 256 acres scheme to number of persons uptil year 1990-91. Plots have also been allotted to local displaced persons out of joint khata. The list of allottees of Joint Khata for the year 1989-90 is attached alongwith the present affidavit as Annexure-1. The last two names shown in this list were under the direction of this Honble Court after May 1991." 9. In the list (Annexure-I), he has admitted allotment of separate plots to the co-sharers, numbering 25, whose land was acquired. 10. In the backdrop of facts mentioned above, this Court is to determine claim of the petitioner, to get allotted a plot, being local displaced person. 11. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note down relevant provisions of 1975 Rules. 10. In the backdrop of facts mentioned above, this Court is to determine claim of the petitioner, to get allotted a plot, being local displaced person. 11. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note down relevant provisions of 1975 Rules. Local displaced person has been defined in Rule 2 of 1975 Rules as under :- "Local Displaced persons means a person who is the owner of a 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 ." 12. Entitlement of a local displaced person, to get a plot is recognized in Rule 7. Relevant portion of it reads thus:- "7(ii) A local displaced person may be allotted a plot upto the size of 500 sq.yards on free hold basis, on reserve price calculated on the basis of the formula in the annexure, if the area of the land owned by him and acquired by the trust is more than 500 sq.yards, if the area of the acquired land is less than 500 sq.yards the local displaced person shall be entitled to allotment of plot which is nearest in size, next below the area of his land, which has come under acquisition." 13. Section 26 of the Act also provides framing of a rehousing scheme to rehabilitate the oustees. It needs as follows:- "Rehousing Scheme:- Whenever the trust deems it necessary that accommodation should be provided for persons who are displaced by the execution of any scheme under this Act, or are likely to be displaced by the execution of any scheme, which it is intended to submit to the (State) (See Adaptation of Laws Order, 1922) Government for sanction under this Act it may frame "a rehousing scheme" for the construction, maintenance and management of such and so many dwellings and shops as ought, in the opinion of the trust, to be provided for such persons." 14 In the year 1983, 1975 Rules were amended and it was provided that local displaced persons, having joint khata, being co-sharer shall be allotted only one plot taking into account the whole of their joint land acquired. Perusal of provisions of the Act and the Rules, mentioned above, indicates that to rehabilitate the owners, whose land was to be acquired, a rehabilitation scheme was envisaged. 15. In this case, eligibility of the petitioner, to get a plot is not disputed, however, it has only been stated that she is entitled to get only one plot along with her other co-sharers. Because other co-sharers are not party in the application for allotment, in view of that her claim was rejected. 16. This Court feels that opinion formed by respondent No.2 is unjustified and contrary to the established law by catena of judgments of this Court. 17. A similar controversy, regarding allotment of a plot, to an owner, whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab, (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 508. This Court after noting the provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, came to a conclusion that the latter Rules cannot be made applicable retrospectively. It was observed as under: - "6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that 1983 Rules would be applicable to the Schemes, which were framed after the enforcement of the 1983 Rules and all schemes for which land had been acquired earlier than the enforcement of 1983 Rules would be covered by 1975 Rules. The Instructions/ decision which were issued by the State Government (Annexure R-1) to which reference has been made above would not be applicable retrospectively to the Scheme for which land had already been acquired and these would be applicable only to those Schemes which were sanctioned after the Instructions were issued." 18. Again, a similar controversy came up before a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Pritam Kaur Grewal and others v. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and others,2 (C.W.P. No.2190 of 1984), decided on 30.8.2006, in that case also, land was acquired by respondent No.2, to execute 2.2 hectares development scheme. Dispute was with regard to allotment of a plot to a local displaced person, who was co-sharer alongwith others, in the land acquired. Respondent No.2 in that case also, put up a defence that as per provisions of 1983 Rules, all the co-sharers were eligible to get only one plot. Dispute was with regard to allotment of a plot to a local displaced person, who was co-sharer alongwith others, in the land acquired. Respondent No.2 in that case also, put up a defence that as per provisions of 1983 Rules, all the co-sharers were eligible to get only one plot. The learned Single Bench, on taking note of the provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, observed that retrospective effect cannot be given to the latter Rules and that the case of the local displaced persons for allotment of plots would be covered under the 1975 Rules. It was opined as under:- "Since the Rules of 1983 have not been given retrospective effect, therefore, this contention is not liable to be accepted, since as already discussed above, the case of the petitioners is covered under the Rules of 1975 and even if by virtue of proviso to rule 16 of the Rules 1983, the Rules of 1975 are repealed, even then this saving clause would not help the respondents in any manner, nor it would stand in the right of the petitioners, which they have clearly acquired under the 1975 Rules and according to the Rule of 1975, the petitioners are entitled to separate plot as per the area of entitlement and it is not open to the respondents to now contend that the petitioners being joint owners under the scheme, are entitled to only one plot particularly when new Rules of 1983 would not operate in the present case, as the acquisition had taken place in the year 1976." 19. This dispute was finally set at rest, by a Division Bench of this Court, in Ranjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, (C.W.P. No.940 of 2007), decided on 23.7.2008. In that case, allotment of a plot to an owner, whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar in the year 1980, was in question. After analyzing provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, it was observed that the petitioner, whose land was acquired in the year 1980, cannot justifiably be excluded from the definition of the local displaced person and cannot be subjected to the embargo which has been created by 1983 Rules. After analyzing provisions of 1975 Rules and 1983 Rules, it was observed that the petitioner, whose land was acquired in the year 1980, cannot justifiably be excluded from the definition of the local displaced person and cannot be subjected to the embargo which has been created by 1983 Rules. Retrospective effect to 1983 Rules cannot be given.n It was also stated thus:- "The petitioner had applied in the year 1980 and the respondents had slept over the allotment for a good period of 12 years and if in this interregnum some changes are effected in the policy or the rules, the same could not imply that the petitioner should be put to a disadvantageous position." 20. In the present case, situation is also not different. Land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1976. Amount of compensation was disbursed to her along with others, as per her individual share, in the year 1980. On asking of respondent No.2, she moved an application to get allotted a plot and also deposited an amount of Rs.500/- towards earnest money on 19.6.1981. Respondent No.2 continued to put off her right, on one or the other technical objection, which was not justified, 21. In view of facts mentioned above, it is not open to respondent No.2 to say that case of the petitioner, for allotment of a plot, was covered under the provisions of 1983 Rules. If stand taken by respondent No.2 is accepted, then it would amount to discrimination with the petitioner. In his affidavit, Mr.Brij Mohan Jhamb, the then Executive Officer of respondent No.2, has categorically admitted that to 25 local displaced persons, who were co-sharers in chunk(s) of land acquired, separate plots were allotted. If that is so, how the petitioner and her co-sharers can be stopped from getting allotment of separate plots in their individual capacity. It is not disputed that compensation was also disbursed, in favour of the petitioner and her co-sharers separately, taking note of their share in the land acquired. 22. In view of above, these writ petitions are allowed and directions are issued to respondent No.2 to allot a plot to the petitioner/petitioners in all these writ petitions, as per their entitlement, under the provisions of 1975 Rules against prevalent (present) reserved price. 22. In view of above, these writ petitions are allowed and directions are issued to respondent No.2 to allot a plot to the petitioner/petitioners in all these writ petitions, as per their entitlement, under the provisions of 1975 Rules against prevalent (present) reserved price. Plots of the size, as they may be entitled to get, as per those Rules, be sanctioned in their favour either, in the Scheme for which their land was acquired or in other adjoining Scheme, wherever the plot(s) may be available. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed