JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) - The appeal in hand has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first Appellate Court’), whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that the plaintiff-respondent, Kuldip Kaur, preferred a suit against the defendant-appellants on the ground that she was owner of the land measuring 14 marlas 102 sq. feet consisting of plot Nos.97 and 98 in the abadi of Satnam Nagar Extension, Near Model Town, Jalandhar, vide Jamabandi 1969-70, which was acquired by the Punjab Government on behalf of the appellants for execution of scheme known as 110 Acres. After the acquisition of her land, the plaintiff-respondent became entitled to the allotment of plot measuring 15 marlas being local displaced person. The defendant-appellants were asked to allot the plot but to no avail. In this background, the suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the learned trial Court directing the plaintiff-appellants to allot her one plot of land measuring 15 marlas. 3. The defendant-appellants contested the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and filed written statement wherein it was inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was not the owner of the land in question which was acquired for the execution of development scheme of 110 acres, 2 years before the first publication of the notification. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from fuling the present suit by her own act and conduct? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP. 4. Relief. 5. Kuldeep Kaur, plaintiff, examined herself as PW1, whereas on behalf of the defendant, Milan Singh Assistant Sale Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, was examined as DW1. 6. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.1985, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.1985, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1986, the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the defendant-appellants were directed to allot one plot measuring 15 marlas or to the extent permissible under the Act, to the plaintiff-respondent. 7. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-appellants. 8. The short question involved in the present case is that whether the plaintiff falls within the definition of ‘Local Displaced Person’ or not under the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954, which were framed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust or under Rule 2 A of the Punjab Town Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, approved by the State of Punjab. There are no other Rules applicable to the Land acquired by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar. 9. Rule 2 (b) Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954, defined the ‘Local Displaced Person’ as the person whose Land has been acquired for a Scheme to be executed under the Damage Area Act. As the land in the present case is not acquired under the Damage Area Act but under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, as such the plaintiffs are not ‘Local Displaced Person’ under the Jalandhar Improvement Land Disposal Rules, 1954. 10. So far as Punjab Town Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, are concerned, Rule 2 (a) provides for the definition of ‘Local Displaced Person’, which provides a person should be the owner of the land acquired by the Trust for the execution of any Scheme under the Act and has been owner for continuous period of 2 years immediately before the first publication of the scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Act. The relevant portion of Rule 2(a) of 1975 Rules is reproduced as under:- “Local displaced person” means a person who is the owner of any land acquired by the Trust for execution of any scheme under the Act and who has been such owner for a continuous period to two years immediately before the first publication of such scheme by the Trust under Section 36”. 11. 11. As in the present case, the notification under Section 36 was issued on 12.08.1974 and the plaintiff purchased the land on 25.04.1975 i.e. after the notification under Section 36 and was not the owner of the property acquired by the Trust for the execution of a scheme two years prior to the date of notification under Section 36 as such, she is not ‘Local Displaced Person’ under the 1975 Rules and is not entitled to the plot. 12. The case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh etc., 1999(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 568, wherein it was held as under:- “6. On 18.9.1975, the State Government promulgated Rules titled as “Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975”. Rules 2(a) thereof defines “”local displaced person” 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”. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules makes reservation of plots and tenants in favour of local displaced persons. On 22.12.1983, the State Government promulgated another Rules titled “The Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983”. Rule 2(d) of the said Rules defines ‘local displaced person’ as follows:- “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.” Rule 4(2) of the said Rules provides for preferential allotment in favour of a local displaced person. 7. A perusal of the above Rules shows that so far as the 1954 Rules are concerned, the definition of ‘local displaced person’ is confined to a person whose lands have been acquired for a scheme to be executed under the Damaged Areas Act. It is not applicable to any other scheme. 7. A perusal of the above Rules shows that so far as the 1954 Rules are concerned, the definition of ‘local displaced person’ is confined to a person whose lands have been acquired for a scheme to be executed under the Damaged Areas Act. It is not applicable to any other scheme. So far as the 1975 and 1983 Rules are concerned, the definition of ‘local displaced person’ applies to a person whose property has been acquired and who has been owner of such property for a continuous period of two years immediately before the first publication of the scheme by the Trust. Thus, it is seen from all these three set of rules that in order to have the benefit of a preferential allotment reserved for a local displaced person, there are contain qualifying standards. Unless and until a person who wants to take benefit of the preferential reservation qualifies to be a local displaced person, the said benefit is not available to him.” 13. Even the Division Bench of this High Court in Khanna Improvement Trust, Khanna Vs. Jai Gopal Gupta, 1993(1) R.R.R. 604, has held as under:- “5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the appeal deserves to succeed. It will be seen that Rule 2 of the 1975 Rules was wholly inapplicable to the case of the respondents as they became owners of the acquired land on 16th June, 1975, whereas the Notification under Section 36 of the Act had been issued on September 14, 1973, whereby they were required to be owners for a continuous period of two years immediately before the publication of the said Notification. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondents were covered by the Scheme is, therefore, totally erroneous. It is further apparent to us that the case of the respondents was not covered under the 1983 Rules for the simple reason that the land that had been acquired from each of them, was less than half an acre.” 14. So far as the argument of the plaintiff-respondent regarding the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, that the Punjab Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, are prospective in nature and not retrospective is not applicable. So far as the argument of the plaintiff-respondent regarding the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, that the Punjab Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975, are prospective in nature and not retrospective is not applicable. There are no other Rules which give the preferential allotment to the person whose land has been acquired and in which they can claim herself as Local Displaced Person. As there are no other Rules applicable to the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, defining ‘Local Displaced Person’, the plaintiff is not entitled to the plot in the absence of any Rules under which she can claim to be ‘Local Displaced Person’, as such the finding of the learned Additional District Judge is erroneous in granting the plot as ‘Local Displaced Person’. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal in hand is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.02.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside, while that of the learned trial Court is restored. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, without costs.