TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Disputed Land Allotment Decision Reversed</h1> <h3>Jalandhar Improvement Trust Versus Sampuran Singh</h3> The Supreme Court held that the respondents did not qualify as 'local displaced persons' under the relevant rules for preferential allotment of plots. The ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of rules regarding preferential allotment of plots to local displaced persons under different schemes executed by the Trust. The main issue is whether the respondents qualify as local displaced persons under the relevant rules to be entitled to preferential allotment.Details of the Judgment:1. The appeals arose from a common judgment by the High Court confirming the decree of the first appellate court in suits filed by the respondents for declaration and mandatory injunction against the Trust to allot them plots in lieu of lands acquired from them. The claim was based on being 'local displaced persons' entitled to preferential allotment under the allotment rules. 2. The acquisitions were made under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and the State Government notified rules defining 'local displaced person' and providing for preferential allotments in their favor.3. The Trust contended that the respondents did not qualify as 'local displaced persons' under the rules, and the courts erred in granting them preferential allotments. The courts below relied on a previous judgment without considering the specific rules and definitions applicable.4. The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to establish their status as 'local displaced persons' as per the rules, and the reliance on the previous judgment was misplaced. The courts should have first determined the eligibility of allotments made to others before granting similar relief to the respondents.5. The principle of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable as the allotments were contrary to the statutory rules. The Trust was directed to refund the amounts deposited by some respondents with interest, as those allotments were found to be illegal.6. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
