1989 PLP 4327 (MLD)

3. The trial Court decreed the suit maintaining that the respondents were entitled to allotment of alternate plot and without such allotment they could not be dispossessed. The tenor of its decision shows that the respondents' contention that they were entitled to allotment of one commercial and one residential plot, found favour with it. The petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by an Additional District Judge on 17‑1‑1988. It is under these circumstances that the unsuccessful defendant has come to this Court, under section 115.C.P.C, against the legal representatives of the original plaintiff who died in the course of this litigation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the copies of the trial Court's record annexed to this file. Before me the correctness of the findings of the Courts below on issue No.3 alone has been debated. It is reproduced below:‑ "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for?" For accepting the plaintiffs' claim both the Courts below amazingly relied upon documents Ex.P.2 and P.3. In my estimation both the documents have been grossly misconstrued by them. Ex.P.2 embodies the plaintiffs/respondents' objection filed under section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act which dealt with by Trust in pursuance of section 40 before sanction of the Development Scheme by the Provincial Government in contemplation of section 41 of the Act. The objection as processed by the town planner is reproduced below:‑ "Mr. Karim Illahi objector No.2 owns 13 marlas of land in the Scheme. He wants that his land may be exempted on the payment of development charges and he may be allowed to building his shops. The T.P. has recommended as in the case of objection No.1. He will have to produce necessary proof regarding the ownership of his property." This recommendation was considered by the Trust in its meeting held on 11‑12‑1958 and the Resolution passed thereon is Ex‑P.3 which in so far as relevant for the purposes of this case is reproduced below:‑‑ "The recommendations of the objections Committee are approved subject to the usual rider that no local owner shall be given on exemption basis more than one plot in the scheme " Ex.P.2 makes mention of Objection No.l but it is idle to refer to the contents thereof, for the terms, of Resolution Ex.P.3 are not open to any doubt and permit allocation of one plot only.

5. The examination of the material on the record particularly the two documents aforesaid, does not (cave me in any manner of doubt that the Court below fell in error in accepting the respondents' right as to the allotment of one commercial and one residential plot. Their learned counsel willy‑nilly had to agree that Ex.P.3 does not warrant allotment of more than one plot. However, on the rectitude of sections 26 and 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 he vainly endeavoured to justify the respondents' claim for allotment of the second plot. I venture to disagree with him without any hesitation. Section 26 of the Act envisages formulation of a Housing Scheme by the Trust, to accommodate the persons displaced by execution of any of its development Schemes. The cognate section 27 confers a right on any resident displaced or likely to be displaced by the execution of the Trust' Scheme to apply to it to be re‑housed and such Scheme cannot be executed till the completion of the re‑housing Scheme provided by Section

26. But the opening words of section 26 "Whenever the Trust deems it necessary" unequivocally demonstrate that the choice to frame a re -housing Scheme lies wholly with the Trust. Formulation of such a Scheme is not obligatory. It is clear to me that the Chauburji Park Scheme is not a re‑housing Scheme. It was framed under section 24/28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. This is apparent from Ex. P.

3. On this analysis of the relevant provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act: the anchoring of the claim on Sections 26 and 27 for allotment of another plot is misconceived.

6. As a result of this discussion I find that the deceased plaintiff was entitled to allotment of only one plot. The respondents' learned counsel has not, drawn my attention to any law conferring a right on them to retain the possession of plot No. 16 till allotment of one commercial and one, residential plot m their favour. I have noticed that in the impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge has referred to petitioner's admission but there is no sushi concession on the record which authorises the respondents to lay hand on two plots. On the other hand reference to section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act will provide them after making the award when the possession has been taken over by' the Land Acquisition Collector, the Land comes to vest in the Government free' from all encumbrances. Thus on completion of the requirements of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act there is hardly any room to treat the allotment of alternate site to the respondents as a condition precedent for their dispossession.

7. For all these reasons this revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree are modified and a declaration is granted in favour of the respondents to the extent that they are entitled to allotment of only one plot accordance with the policy governing the Chauburji Park Development Scheme Other relief asked for is denied. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./L‑53/L Revision accepted.