JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta J. (Oral) - All the three writ petitioners are the sons of Bhisham Datt, who relies upon a decree to claim independent plots as the landowners whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust. Since, the issues raised are identical; all the three writ petitions are taken up for hearing. 2. The challenge in the present writ petitions is to the resolution dated 14.5.1997, whereby claim of the petitioners for allotment of plot measuring 500 square yard was rejected for the reason that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions of eligibility of allotment of plot. 3. Each of the petitioner claims to be owner of plot measuring 3 Kanals 16 Marlas i.e. 71/2528 share in Khewat No.1271/1, Khatoni No.1693 as per jamabandi for the year 1970-71. The land owned by the petitioner was acquired by the Improvement Trust for implementation of residential Scheme in the year 1976. The petitioner relies upon a decree of the Civil Court, by virtue of which, his father Bhisham Datt and the petitioners claims to have 1/6th share each in the land in question, whereas the defendant was said to be the owner of remaining 1/7th share. 4. The grievous of the writ petitioners is that their claim for allotment of plot is required to be considered in terms of the Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trusts Rules, 1975 (for Short “1975 Rules”), wherein the local displaced person is a person, who is owner of the property for a continuous period of two years before the first publication of the Scheme by the Trust under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The definition of local displaced person has not gone under change when the 1975 Rules were substituted with the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (for Short “1983 Rules”). But the Rule 4(2) of the 1983 Rules provides that a local displaced person shall be allotted a residential plot on reserve price; 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. The proviso contemplates that local displaced person having a joint khata being co-sharers shall be allotted only one plot taking into account the whole or their joint land acquired. The proviso contemplates that local displaced person having a joint khata being co-sharers shall be allotted only one plot taking into account the whole or their joint land acquired. After the directions of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected. 5. In reply, the stand of the respondent that father of the petitioner Bhisham Datt, a co-owner stand allotted a plot measuring 400 square yards in the year 1980. Since one co-sharer has been allotted a plot, the petitioners are not entitled for allotment of the plot in their individual capacity. 6. A Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jarnail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2977 (FB)] : CWP No. 2575 of 2009 decided on 1.10.2010, has examined the policy instructions issued by the State of Punjab restricting the right of allotment of one plot to all the co-sharers. It has been held that such policy is not tenable in law as each co-owner is entitled to allotment of plot keeping in view of the land owned by him. It was observed as under:- “We find that the restrictions of allotment of one plot to a joint khata holder is unreasonable and arbitrary as each of the land owner is entitled to rehabilitation in his individual right. The rights of co-owners have been delineated in the judgment of this Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528 and reiterated by a Five Judges Bench judgment in Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 685. A co-owner is owner of land as much as his other co-owners are. Mere fact that two or more persons have not sought partition of their holding and/or are enjoying the joint possession, does not affect the title of each of the co-owners. The co-owners are deprived of their title and possession by way of acquisition of land. Therefore, there is no reasonable explanation as to why a co-owner has been made ineligible, except to the extent that number of co-owners would be so large, which will make the process of acquisition itself futile. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Clause restricting the allotment of one plot to all co-owners is irrational, arbitrary and with no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved and thus, not sustainable. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Clause restricting the allotment of one plot to all co-owners is irrational, arbitrary and with no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved and thus, not sustainable. Therefore, we hold that Clause 6(V) of the Policy dated 16.9.1994 restricting allotment of one plot to all the co-sharers, is illegal and void.” 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner was declared to be owner of 1/7th share by virtue of a decree in the year 1973 i.e. prior to publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 in the year 1976, therefore, the petitioners satisfy the requirement of a local displaced person. Therefore, that the father of the petitioners, another co-sharer, has been allotted a plot, cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the plot. 8. But having said so, the plot can be allotted to the local displaced person only after an advertisement is issued inviting applications from all eligible persons for allotment of plots keeping in view the land holding of each of the landowners. 9. Therefore, we dispose of all the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to apply for their respective plots in view of their land holding as and when any decision is taken to allot plots to the local displaced persons, if plots in that category are available for allotment in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————