The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition seeking allotment of a plot as a local displaced person, holding he was neither a bonafide purchaser nor a local displaced person as he did not own the land when it was acquired, citing inordinate delay and laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12051 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 02, 2015
Hardarshan Singh Walia
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
Present: Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The State of Punjab acquired land for the development of '180 Acres Development Scheme' known as 'Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar' by the Improvement Trust, Patiala. The Award was passed on 28.07.1978. The petitioner claims to have purchased a part of the acquired land measuring 600 square yards vide registered sale deed dated 17.02.1981. On that basis, he further claims himself to be a 'local displaced person' who is entitled to allotment of plot under the Local Displaced Persons Scheme. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been representing the Trust-authorities for such an allotment from the last more than three decades and has finally come to the Court.
The plea of discrimination is also taken as according to the petitioner, the post-acquisition vendees like him have been allotted plots.
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.15 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.12051 of 2015 [2]
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears to us that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed not only on the ground of inordinate delay and laches but also for the reason that the petitioner is neither a bonafide purchaser nor a local displaced person. He was not owner of the land when it was acquired, hence, he does not qualify in the definition of 'local displaced person'.
Dismissed.
However, if the process to acquire the land of petitioner was initiated after he had purchased it and any compensation was paid to him being the affected person, then he shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy before the Trust authorities.
Disposed of accordingly.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
September 02, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.15 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a post-acquisition purchaser qualifies as a local displaced person entitled to a plot under the Local Displaced Persons Scheme.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of inordinate delay and laches.
Whether the petitioner, having failed to prove bonafide purchase, is eligible for the scheme allotment.
Hardarshan Singh Walia
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
Jaspal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
