Yash Pal vs State Of Punjab

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -1-
101+302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 07.09.2026
(I) CWP-7476-2000 (O&M)
YASHPAL AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(II) CWP-3765-2002 (O&M)
MILAP CHAND AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(III) CWP-15467-2004 (O&M)
KEWAL KRISHAN AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
(IV) CWP-12788-2008 (O&M)
JOGINDER KAUR AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate
Mr. Divyanshu Juneja, Advocate and
Mr. Prakhar Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP-7476-2000.
Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-15467-2004.
Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate for
Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-3765-2002 .
Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate for UOI.
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Punjab with
Ms. Shruti, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Senior Advocate and
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajat Verma, Advocate,
Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate and
Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur, Advocate
for respondent-Improvement Trust, Amritsar in CWP-15467-2004.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate,
Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate and
Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate
for the respondent- Improvement Trust, Amritsar
in CWP-7476-2000
CWP-3765-2002, and CWP-12788-2008.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate,
Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate
Ms. Nishtha Grover, Advocate and
Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.4-M.C., Amritsar.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. All the four petitions, involving the same issue, are taken up
together for final disposal with the consent of learned counsels for the
parties.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -3-
2. The present petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to allot commercial sites/shops to the petitioners by
implementing the scheme duly framed by the Government for the purpose of
rehabilitating the sufferers/oustees of Blue Star Operation, whose shops were
burnt, destroyed and demolished due to the said operation in the year 1984
around Golden Temple Complex, Amritsar, with a further prayer to direct the
respondents to implement the scheme framed by the Government for this
particular purpose, which even after the lapse of a long time still exits in
papers/Government record and has not been finalized and implemented as has
been done in case of other similarly situated persons, who were ousted under
the Galiara Scheme.
3. These matters have been placed before us after being remanded
back by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 in SLP No.19234-
2015. While dealing with the present four cases, we are actually at pains
because the matter pertains to citizens of India, who were having their business
adjoining Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar and were displaced during Operation Blue
Star when the military had entered Sri Darbar Sahib Complex and this fact is
not disputed by any of the parties. It was 42 years ago that the aforesaid incident
took place and now after so many years, we are deciding the issue as to at what
rate the petitioners should be granted the alternate sites of their shops,
notwithstanding the decision taken by the State in the early 1990s. Be that as it
may, we keep in mind the latin maxim fiat justitia ruat caelum , which means
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -4-
‘let justice be done, though the heavens fall’. One of the primary grievances of
the petitioners is that the Government has been delaying the matter for a long
time which is nearly four decades. In fact, the matter should have been put to an
end much earlier so as to avoid protracted litigation in view of the latin maxim
interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium , which means that ‘it is in the interest of
the State that there should be an end to litigation’ and that litigation should not
be perpetuated. It was obligatory upon the State to have acted promptly for
rehabilitation of displaced persons, which State has failed to do so.
4. The foundational facts of this bunch of writ petitions are not in
dispute. In June, 1984, Operation Blue Star was conducted. The petitioners were
running their businesses adjoining Sri Darbar Sahib Complex, at the back and
sides thereof. It is undisputed that at the time of the aforesaid operation, the
petitioners were displaced from their places of business. Till date, these oustees
including the petitioners have not been allotted any alternate sites for their
shops, except for 18 of them and they have been litigating ever since.
5. As aforesaid, the petitioners were conducting their businesses from
small shops/vending places situated on the side of Sri Darbar Sahib Complex or
at the back side thereof. After the aforesaid Operation Blue Star in June, 1984,
the State of Punjab decided to beautify the area on the front and surroundings of
Sri Darbar Sahib, which is called the ‘Galiara area’. On the front side of Sri
Darbar Sahib, there were a number of shops and a Scheme was framed by the
Government of Punjab in the year 1988, which was about four years after the
aforesaid Operation Blue Star took place in the year 1984 to displace those
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -5-
other persons as well who were having their shops so that the area can be
cleared and beautified in a planned manner. For that purpose, a ‘Galiara
Scheme’ was formulated by the State of Punjab under which different categories
were made for the purpose of allotment of alternate sites to those persons. The
package of incentives was provided to oustees under the commercial category,
which included tenants, owners and residential. The relevant portion of the
aforesaid Galiara Project pertaining to tenants, which was introduced in the year
1988 and provided a package of incentives to the oustees, is reproduced as
under:-
“Galiara Project
ANNEXURE
Guidelines
PACKAGE OF INCENTIVES TO THE OUSTEES
All the persons who were ousted from the Project
Area, were offered alternatives sites, houses or subsidy.
Their detail is as under:-
1. COMMERCIAL
(a) Tenants .
(i) Tenants of the propertiers, who had taken
propertiers on rent for commercial purposes, were offererd
attractive sites @Rs.1,000/- per Sq. Yd. The market value of
these sites was even higher than Rs.4,000/- per sq. yrd. The
difference in cost was subsidised.
(ii) The cost of land was to be recovered in four
equal annual instalments with one year moratorium. The
interest was to be charged @ 4%. The difference in the
interest rate ciz. 12-4%=8% was subsidized.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -6-
(iii) 50% cost of construction was paid as subsidy.
The cost of construction was calculated @Rs.177/- per sq.
foot.”
6. A perusal of the aforesaid Scheme would show that the tenants of
the proprietors, who had taken properties on rent for commercial purposes were
offered attractive sites at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard and since the
market value of those sites at that point of time was Rs.4,000/- per square yard,
the difference in the cost was therefore subsidized. Thereafter, even equal
annual installments over a period of one year were also provided, with the
additional benefit that 50% of the cost of construction was to be paid as subsidy,
as aforesaid.
7. In this way, those who were oustees under the planned scheme of
the State of Punjab pertaining to Galiara, which came into being in the year
1988 and who were displaced as oustees in a phased manner, were granted
alternate sites at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard but there was no scheme
for those oustees who are the present petitioners, who were rather worst affected
 by the Operation Blue Star, which was conducted in June, 1984.
8. On the basis of various representations submitted by these outsees,
some of whom are the petitioners in the present bunch of petitions, a letter dated
22.05.1989 was written by the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar submitting a list of tenants of
private properties adjoining Golden Temple at the time of Kar Sewa of Sh. Akal
Takhat Sahib after the Army action in the year 1984.  It was stated therein that
the A.I.T. had allotted 118 constructed Tin Stalls in Kesari Bagh, Amritsar for
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -7-
rehabilitating the persons affected by the Army Action in 1984 by draw of lots
and the list of the same was also enclosed. In the year 1991, a letter was written
by the office of the Regional Deputy Director, Local Government incorporating
therein that a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary
of Government of Punjab on 28.11.1991 to discuss the rehabilitation of the
oustees of the Blue Star Operation and it was also decided that the case of
rehabilitation of oustees will be dealt by the Department of Rehabilitation and
Relief. However, on the plea of the Secretary Rehabilitation, it was decided that
the problem of rehabilitation of the Blue Star Oustees will be by the Department
of Local Self Government. It was further decided that all the relevant papers
will be obtained from the department of rehabilitation and relief and the case
will be processed for the allotment of sites etc. on the same lines as has been
done in the case of Galiara Corridor Oustees . The relevant portion of the
aforesaid letter dated 28.11.1991 is reproduced as under:-
“ Sub:- For the oustees of the Blue Star Operation.
A meeting was held under the chairmanship of the
Chief Secretary of Government, Punjab on 28.11.1991 to
discuss the rehabilitation of the oustees of the Blue Star
Operation. Some time during the beginning of the year 1991.
It was decided that this case of rehabilitation of oustees will
be dealt by the deptt. of Rehabilitation and Relief. On the
plea of the Secretary Rehabilitation it was decided that the
problem of rehabilitation of the blue star oustees will be by
the department of Local Self Government. It was also
decided that all the relevant paper will be obtained from the
department of rehabilitation and relief and the case will be
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -8-
processed for the allotment of sites etc. on the same lines as
has been done in the case of Galiara corridor oustees . In
the past this case was referred to the Finance Department
and the Planning Department by the Department of Local
Self Government. Once again in the light of the decision now
that the Local Self Government Department will handle the
oustees problems, this department has once agains to go to
the Planning Department and also to the Finance
Department. Simultaneously we will have to approach the
Home Department/CS/Governor for their onward urging the
matter with the Government of India for getting the funds for
the State Government. Before we go to the Planning Deptt.,
we should take the matter before the Governor in Council.
The anticipated amount is Rs.1.50 crores. This estimate at
the current rate must have gone up. We should have revised
estimate prepared.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the year 1992 i.e. on 09.08.1992, a letter was written by the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar to the Secretary to the
Government of Punjab, Local Government Department, Chandigarh, wherein it
was stated that the concerned official of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar
has already been directed to collect the relevant record of the oustees of Blue
Star operation from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. It further
intimated that a Scheme was framed for allocating the sites of the oustees of
Galiara Project and these Schemes are either the ownership of Amritsar
Improvement Trust or the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and the market
value of the developed sites was determined at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per square
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -9-
yard, whereas the oustees were to be charged at the cost of the land and in the
case of tenants, the rate was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per square yard and there was a
subsidy of 50% of the cost of construction. In the later part of the aforesaid
letter, it was also stated that all the facilities will be provided on the pattern of
Galiara Project . In this way, the aforesaid decision taken under the Chairman
of the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab that the oustees of Operation
Blue Star were to be given the same benefits as those extended to the Galiara
Project oustees was carried forward by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, by
way of the aforesaid letter. The aforesaid letter dated 09.08.1992 is reproduced
as under:-
“From:-
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar.
To,
The Secretary to Govt. (Punjab)
Local Govt. Department,
Chandigarh.
No.C/EO/2836 Dated 9.8.92
Subject:- Oustees of Blue Star
Reference your office No.48400 dated 29.11.91.
It is submitted that the necessary report on the
above said note pertaining to this corporation is given as
under:-
It is intimated that the concerned official of the
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar has already been directed
to collect the relevant record of the oustees of Blue Star from
the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. It is further
intimated that the scheme was framed for allocating the sites
to the oustees of Galiara Project. These schemes are either
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -10-
the ownership of Amritsar Improvement Trust or the
Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. The market value of the
developed sites who determined @ Rs. 4,000/- per sq. yds.
The oustees were to be charged the cost of land as under:-
i) Tenants Rs.1,000/- per sq. yds. They were
allowed subsidy @ 50% of the cost
of construction which assessed @
Rs.177/- per sq. ft.
ii) Owners Rs.3,000/- per sq. yds.
The cost of the land was to be covered from tenant in
the four equitable instalments with one year moraterium and
from the owners six equited annual instalments with one year
moraterium. The anticipated expenditure : Rs: 1.25 crores
was prepared to the oustees of Blue Star on the patterns of
Galiara Project. The estimate for the rehabilitation of
oustees of Blue Star Operation : revised and its amount come
to Rs.1,51,94,929/-. It has already been intimated to the
Government that it expected that some mere claiments may
submits the applications at later stage. They may pleas they
had not the claim earlier and no scheme was framed for the
rehabilitation of the said oustees. In case 10% applicants
are added, the total expenditure will be Rs.1.68 crores.
This amount may be arranged from the Planning
Department.
It is also reported that if the oustees of Blue Star may
be given the facility of the revised anticipated expenditure
then the cost of land will also be increased due to the reason
that the cost of land and the payment of the subsidy has been
increased. This increase will be increased by 20% and the
cost of the land will be charged from the oustees of Blue Star
Operation on the revised estimated as under :-
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -11-
i) Tenants Rs.1200/- per sq. yds. They were
allowed subsidy @ 50% of the cost
of construction.
ii) Owners Rs.3600/- per sq. yds.
All the facilities wi11 be provided on the pattern of
Galiara Project. It is true to mentioned here that the plots to
the Blue Star oustees will be allocated out of the vacant/
available plots which are carved out for the oustees
of Galiara Project under the ownership of the
Amritsar Improvement Trust and Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar.
II) The estimate for erecting M.S. Grill around the
periphery of Galiara amounting to Rs. 20.08 lacs has since
been submitted to Director, Local Govt. vide this office no.
C/SE1020 dated 13.9.94. Further, a copy of the same has
been re-submitted again vide this office letter No. C/SE/886-
52/1549 dated 14.12.91.
III) For making foot path to be used by pedestrians, an
estimate for providing dry brick on edge flooring in
the Galiara Complex amounting to Rs.14,59,500/- has since
been submitted vide this office No.SE/802-11/1286 dated
21.10.91.
IV) The balance funds again this project could not be
spent as the work is held up due to certain reasons and also
non-approval of conceptual plan of Galiara by the
Government. Since, the unspent amount amount is
specifically to be used on the balance work of Galiara. So, it
would not be worthwhile to withdraw this amount and to be
used for some other purpose untill and unless Govt. takes a
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -12-
final decision on the balance work to be carried out at site of
Galiara.
Sd/-
Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the year 2006, the matter was again taken up in a meeting held
under the Chairmanship of Sh. B. R. Bajaj, IAS, Principal Secretary, Local
Government of Punjab to hear the grievances of 1984 Blue Star affected
shopkeepers and tenants in the periphery of Golden Temple, Amritsar. The
decision so taken was also reflected in the letter dated 31.10.2006 issued by the
Additional Secretary, Local Government Department to the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Director, Amritsar as well as the Chairman, Improvement
Trust, Amritsar and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and the
aforesaid proceedings were also attached with the said letter. In the decision
taken in the aforesaid meeting, it was again reiterated that after deliberation, it
was decided that the Chairman, Improvement Trust will draw a commercial
scheme for constructing booths and shops for the rehabilitation of Blue Star
tenants/sufferers. It was also decided that the same rehabilitation policy for
rehabilitation should be followed as in the case of oustees of Galiara Scheme
and after preparing the detailed rehabilitation commercial schemes, the
Chairman Improvement Trust should submit his report to the Government of
Punjab, Department of Local Bodies so that the same could be implemented at
the earliest, as the sufferers of Operation Blue Star have already spend a lot of
time waiting for the relief. The relevant portion of the decision so taken in the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -13-
meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Local
Government of Punjab, is reproduced as under:-
“After deliberation it was decided that Chairman
Improvement Trust will draw a commercial scheme for
constructing booths and shops for the rehabilitation of Blue
Star tenants/sufferers. It was also decided that the same
rehabilitation policy for rehabilitation should be followed
as in the case of oustees of Galiara Scheme and after
preparing the detailed rehabilitation commercial Schemes,
Chairman Improvement Trust should submit his report to the
Govt. Punjab department of Local Govt. So that same could
be implemented at the earliest, as the sufferers of Operation
Blue Star have already spend a lot of time waiting for the
relief.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the
Chairman, by the Operation Blue Star tenants/sufferers
Association.
Sd/-
Principal Secretary,
Local Govt., Punjab,
Chandigarh-cum-Chairman
Golden Temple, Galiara Project.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. In this way, right from the year 1991, the Government of Punjab
had already taken a conscious decision first under the Chairmanship of the
Chief Secretary of Government of Punjab and thereafter, under the
Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Local Government Department,
Punjab that the oustees of Operation Blue Star around the Golden Temple,
Amritsar which includes the present petitioners were to be rehabilitated in the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -14-
same manner as that of the oustees of the Galiara Scheme by adopting same
scheme. The present petitioners, who are the oustees of Operation Blue Star
were affected in the year 1984. The aforesaid Galiara Scheme came into effect
in the year 1988, which was a planned scheme formulated for the purpose of
clearing the area and beautifying the surroundings outside the Golden Temple
Complex.
12. It was then in the year 2012 that the Government of Punjab
thereafter granted approval for the allotment of 133 booths by way of direct
allotment of lots to the aforesaid oustees by way of a decision taken by the
Cabinet of Punjab, which is reflected from the letter dated 27.07.2012 issued by
the Under Secretary, Local Government to the Executive office, Improvement
Trust, Amritsar. The aforesaid letter dated 27.07.2012 is reproduced as under:-
“GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
(S.S.-2 BRANCH)
To
Executive Officer,
Improvement Trust,
Amritsar.
Memo No.5/329/06(2)-1 SS2/2040
Dated Chandigarh 27.7.12
Subject:- Regarding allotment of booths to the tenants of
the shops as demolished around Sri Harmandir
Sahib during Operation Blue Star.
In reference to your L. No.AIT/1574, dated
17.5.2012 on the above subject.
2. On consideration of the matter the Governor of
Punjab is pleased to accord Approval for allotment of 133
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -15-
booths by way of direct allotment of lots, giving relaxation in
Section 8 of Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of land
and allotment of plots) Rules, 1983 to the tenants of shops as
demolished around Sri Harmandir Sahib during Operation
Blue Star at two commercial sites (3.73 Acres and 2.00
Acres) in 27 Sq. yd. booth sites at the present Collector's rate
of Rs.38,400/- per Sq. yd. for Rs.10,36,800/- per boot site, as
identified by Improvement Trust, Amritsar.
3. Keeping in view the orders dated 24.5.2002 of
Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3765 of 2002,
those persons who are not accommodated in Site No.1 be
accommodated in Site No.2 or at other place.
4. This Approval is being issued in consonance
with the decision of the meeting of Counsel of Ministers
dated 18.7.12 as informed by General Administration
Department (Cabinet Affairs Branch) vide I.D.L.
No.1/101/12-1 Cabinet/2606, dated 20.7.12.
Sd/-
Under Secretary Local Government.”
13. The petitioners, who were oustees/tenants/sufferers of Operation
Blue Star in the year 1984, having no other choice had earlier filed a bunch of
writ petitions before this Court with the lead case bearing No.CWP-12788-2008
and other connected cases, which were disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court on 05.01.2015. During the proceedings before the Coordinate Bench,
learned counsel for the respondent-Improvement Trust, Amritsar produced a
communication dated 27.07.2012, which has been reproduced above, pointing
out that the sites to the sufferers/oustees of Operation Blue Star around Sri
Harmandir Sahib had been decided to be allotted at the Collector’s rate of
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -16-
Rs.38,400/- per square yard and in pursuance of such decision taken by the
State Government, applications had been invited from the willing oustees of the
Operation Blue Star, including the present petitioners, who can apply for
allotment of available sites with the Improvement Trust, Amritsar and therefore,
the writ petitions were disposed of. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment dated 05.01.2005 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court is
reproduced as under:-
“Mr. Dhaliwal, learned counsel representing the
Amritsar Improvement Trust, has produced a communication
dated 27.07.2012 from the State Government to Executive
Officer of the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, pointing out that
the sites to the sufferers/oustees of the Operation ‘Blue Star’
around Sri Harmandir Sahib has been decided to be allotted
at the Collector’s rate of Rs.38,400/- per square yard.
Mr. Dhaliwal further states that in pursuance of such
decision of the State Government applications have been
invited from the willing oustees of the Operation ‘Blue Star’
including the present petitioners, who can apply for
allotment of available sites with the Improvement Trust
Amritsar.
In view of such decision of allotment of sites to the
petitioners in these four writ petitions, no cause survives to
the petitioners.
In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed
of accordingly.”
14. The aforesaid judgment was assailed by the petitioners, who were
the oustees, before Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLPs, with the lead case
bearing SLP(C) No.19234 of 2015 and Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -17-
cases back to this Court for deciding the issue. It was observed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that a dispute had arisen on the rates at which the land is sought
to be allotted and that the respondents had decided to charge at the rate of
Rs.38,400/- per square yard. This quantum of rate was not specifically raised
before the High Court and in view of these circumstances, Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that it would be more appropriate if the High Court decides as
to at what rate the land should be allotted and therefore, the cases were referred
back to this Court to decide the aforesaid issue and have now been placed
before us for adjudication as to the rate at which the present petitioners and
other oustees should be allotted the sites.
15. During the pendency of SLPs before Hon’ble Supreme Court, an
interim order was also passed directing the petitioners to deposit the amount
at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square yard before the Registry of Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Registry of Hon’ble Supreme Court was also directed
to remit the said amount to the High Court, along with the interest accrued
thereon and in this way, the said amount which was deposited by the
petitioners before the Registry of Hon’ble Supreme Court was to be
transferred to this Court along with the interest accrued thereon. The aforesaid
judgment dated 28.02.2017 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as
under:-
“ It is seen from the record that the petitioners herein
had demanded that they should be rehabilitated, being
victims as a result of Blue Star Operation. A scheme was
formulated for this purpose and the respondent government
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -18-
agreed to help them. Offer to allot the land was given to the
petitioners herein in this behalf. We may notice that the
petitioners had filed writ petitions before the aforesaid
decision was taken by the respondents. During the pendency
of those writ petitions, the respondents had informed the
court that the respondents were agreeable to allot the land to
the petitioners herein. On the basis of the statement, the High
Court disposed of the writ petitions.
Now a dispute has arisen on the rates at which
the land is sought to be allotted. The respondents
have decided to change the rate of Rs.38,400/- per square
yard which is challenged by the petitioners. This is an
issue which was never specifically raised before the High
Court.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that it
would be more appropriate if the High Court also decides as
to at what rate the land should be allotted. We, therefore,
refer these cases back to the High Court to decide the
aforesaid issue. Since the matters are lingering on for quite
some time, we request the High Court to decide these cases
within six months.
With the aforesaid observation, these special leave
petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
An interim order was passed directing the petitioners
to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
square yard before the Registry of this Court. The Registry
is, therefore, directed to remit the aforesaid amount to
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
along with the amount of interest which has accrued
thereon.”
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -19-
16. In this way, after the cases were remitted back by Hon’ble Supreme
Court to this Court, this Court is now to adjudicate upon the quantum of rates
on the basis of which the allotment of shops/booths is to be given to the
petitioners for the purpose of their rehabilitation as a result of they being
oustees of Operation Blue Star in the year 1984. This is the precise issue upon
which this Court is delving upon i.e. fixation of the rates for oustees of 1984
Operation Blue Star.
17. Learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the
petitioners are those persons who are oustees of Operation Blue Star in the
year 1984, where at the time of the aforesaid Operation being held, they were
displaced and were commencing their business there as tenants. They further
submitted that it is not only that the Government of Punjab way back in the
year 1991 and thereafter, in the year 2006 under the Chairmanship of the
Chief Secretary of the Government of Punjab and the Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Bodies, Government of Punjab respectively had
consciously decided to allot the sites to the petitioners and other oustees at
par with those of the Galiara Project Scheme but rather the petitioners are at a
much higher pedestal as compared to the aforesaid oustess of the Galiara
Project because they were worst hit and prior in point of time.
18. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
are those persons who were commencing their work adjoining Sri Darbar Sahib
when curfew was imposed and by compulsion and force, their entire work was
destroyed and they did not even lift any of their articles because the entire area
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -20-
was under curfew and all the articles were destroyed and they did not take
anything with them, whereas in the case of the Galiara Scheme, the same came
into being after four years from Operation Blue Star i.e. in the year 1988 by
way of a conscious decision taken by the Government of Punjab for the purpose
of clearing the area and beautification of the adjoining area of the Golden
Temple Complex, which was done in a planned and phased manner and for
those people who were displaced as a part of the Scheme of the Galiara Project,
the articles and other materials in the shops were never destroyed or misplaced
because displacement happened in a planned and phased manner, whereas in the
case of the petitioners, the entire action was taken immediately after imposing
curfew and they could not take anything from their shops. They submitted that
in this way, the present petitioners, who were the oustees of the year 1984 at the
time of Operation Blue Star are at a much better footing and on a higher
pedestal as that of the oustees of the Galiara Scheme. They further
submitted that for those oustees of the Galiara Scheme, who were tenants as per
the Scheme reproduced above, alternate sites were allotted to them at that point
of time by way of a conscious decision of the State of Punjab at the rate of
Rs.1000/- per square yard, along with different types of subsidies, whereas the
respondent-State of Punjab has wrongfully decided by way of the aforesaid
decision taken in the year 2012 that the oustees of 1984 Blue Star Operation
should be given the site at the rate of Rs.38,400/- per square yard.
19. Learned counsels submitted that it was thereafter that even
Resolution No.31 dated 31.01.2020 was passed by the Improvement Trust
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -21-
fixing the rate at Rs.14,450/- per square yard but this Resolution was rescinded
by the State of Punjab because of the aforesaid reason that earlier the rate had
been fixed at Rs.38,400/- per square yard. They further submitted that the
aforesaid action of the State of Punjab was totally arbitrary and unfair to the
petitioners, who have been sufferers of Operation Blue Star for the aforesaid
reasons so given. They further submitted that they will be satisfied in case the
petitioners are even now given the benefit of the aforesaid Scheme which was
applicable to the Galiara oustees, despite the fact that the present petitioners are
at a better footing as compared to the aforesaid Galiara Scheme. They also
submitted that the petitioners had been sufferers for the last 42 years and that
there had been protracted litigation and the respondent-State, being a welfare
State, is under a Constitutional obligation to have provided an alternative site
immediately after Operation Blue Star was conducted the year 1984, whereby
the petitioners were displaced without being given any opportunity of taking
away their articles, which were destroyed during the action.
20. On the other hand, Ms. Anu Chatrath, learned Senior Additional
Advocate General, Punjab with Ms. Shruti, learned Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab submitted that the Government of Punjab has already taken a decision in
the year 2012 by fixing the rate at Rs.38,400/- per square yard, which is on the
basis of the Collector rate of the area where the shops are to be provided and
therefore, the action of the respondent-State is in accordance with law. They
further submitted that the respondent-State is ready and willing to allot and
transfer the sites at the aforesaid rate to the petitioners. They also submitted that
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -22-
by way of the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court, the State Government wishes to reconsider the aforesaid rate and in this
regard, the matter is pending before the Cabinet of Punjab, although no final
decision has been taken so far.
21. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Improvement Trust, Amritsar in CWP-15467-2004 and Mr. Sanjeev Soni,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar have submitted that rather the Improvement Trust had taken a decision
in the year 2020 by passing a Resolution that the rates can be fixed at
Rs.14,450/- per square yard but the State Government thereafter rescinded the
aforesaid Resolution. Both the learned counsels have submitted that Hon’ble
Supreme Court has so observed that this Court may fix any rate in accordance
with law.
22. All the learned counsels for the parties were heard at length.
23. For the purpose of understanding the factual position pertaining to
the number of allottes and as to how many were the total allotees and how many
have been allotted the alternate sites, the learned Senior Additional Advocate
General, Punjab has supplied a brief note during the proceedings before this
Court on the factual aspect, which has not been disputed by the learned
counsels for the petitioners as well. She has referred to the chart which has been
produced before the Court and after seeking instructions from Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, who is present in
the Court, submitted that the factual position pertaining to the said 122 persons
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -23-
is as reflected in the said chart. The said chart is taken on record as Mark-‘X’.
As per the said chart, 18 persons have already been allotted the sites and have
deposited the full price. In the case of 14 persons, allotment letters have been
issued as they have deposited 1/4th of the amount at the aforesaid rate of
Rs.38,400/- per square yard. 13 persons have also been issued allotment letters
on the basis of deposit of 10% of the amount by them at the rate of Rs.38,400/-
per square yard and 35 persons have also deposited 10% of the amount at the
aforesaid rate of Rs.38,400/- per square yard, but since they have filed writ
petitions, the verification is yet to be done. So far as the remaining 42 persons
are concerned, no allotment letters have been issued to them but they have still
deposited an amount at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square yard in pursuance of
the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid
Mark-‘X’ is reproduced as under:-
“ Subject : Regarding allotment of booths to rehabilitate
shopkeepers around Sri Akal Takht Sahib under the
Galiara Scheme during the 1984 attack on Sri Akal Takht
Sahib Ji.
1. Approval was granted by the government vide Memo No.
5/329/06(2)-1HH2/2040 dated 27/7/2015 for allotment through
draw instead of auction at the rate of Rs. 38,400/- per square yard.
2. Out of 144 affected persons, 128 persons applied in the draw,
and the draw for 122 persons was conducted.
3. Since 122 booth sites were available at the existing site at that
time, the draw for 122 persons was conducted, and the draw for
the remaining 6 booth sites could not be conducted due to
planning/site non-clearance. Out of these 6 persons, 1 person took
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -24-
back the earnest money, and the draw for the remaining 5 persons
has not been conducted yet.
4. Out of the total 122 persons whose draw was conducted, 80
persons deposited earnest money of Rs. 87,091/- each.
5. Out of the 80 persons, allotment letters were issued to 40
persons at that time, and verification proceedings regarding legal
heirs for the remaining 40 persons were ongoing by the Deputy
Commissioner, Amritsar, out of which allotment letters were issued
to 5 persons after verification of legal heirs.
6. An S.L.P. regarding writ was filed by 42 persons in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and these persons deposited an amount of
Rs. 2,26,800/- per booth in the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the rate
of Rs. 10,000/- per square yard.
7. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Trust and Government in
this regard, and the Supreme Court on 28/2/2017 remanded the
matter, directing the Hon'ble High Court to decide within 6 months.
8. The details of the 122 persons whose draw was conducted are as
follows:
Details of 122 Persons Description
18 Persons (Allotment The full price of Rs.8,70,912/- at the rate of
issued) Rs.38,400/- per square yard has been
deposited by these persons. Out of these 18, 6
persons have sold the booths further and 6
persons have got the registry done.
14 Persons (Allotment 1/4th amount of Rs.2,17,728/- at the rate of
issued) Rs.38,400/- per square yard has been
deposited by these persons.
13 Persons (Allotment 10 percent amount of Rs. 87,091/- at the rate
issued) of Rs. 38,400/- per square yard has been
deposited by these persons.
35 Persons (Allotment 10 percent amount of Rs. 87,091/- at the rate
not issued) of Rs. 38,400/- per square yard has been
deposited by these persons, and they have
gone to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
verification has not been done by them.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -25-
42 Persons (Allotment A court case was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme
not issued) Court, and Rs. 2,26,800/- per booth was
deposited in the court.
9. At present, out of total 18 persons who have deposited full
amount, 8 persons have constructed booths at the site.”
24. A perusal of the aforesaid data and the submissions made by the
learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the basis of the
instructions received from the Executive Officer, makes it clear that there were
total 128 persons who were eligible as being verified, out of which only 122
persons have been dealt with either by way of allotment or no allotment. So far
as the remaining 6 persons are concerned, one person has already withdrawn his
money and therefore, cannot be considered but so far as the remaining 5
persons are concerned, their cases could not be considered for allotment
because there was no draw of lots conducted for them because there was no
place available at the same site where the aforesaid 122 persons have been
allotted sites.
25. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid 5 persons, who
have not yet been considered for allotment because of non-availability of the
sites at the place where 122 persons have been allotted sites, is no reason for
discriminating them and therefore, the State is under an obligation to consider
the cases of those 5 persons as well.
26. The aforesaid sequence of facts and circumstances would clearly
suggest that it is ex facie clear and writ large that the petitioners and the
similarly situated oustees were the sufferers of displacement in June, 1984 when
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -26-
Operation Blue Star took place during which curfew was imposed and they
were immediately displaced without being given an opportunity to take away
the material and articles from their shops. It was thereafter in the year 1988 that
a separate Scheme was formulated by the State of Punjab, namely, the Galiara
Scheme, which was for the purpose of clearing and beautification of the area
around the Golden Temple Complex. In the said scheme, separate rates were
fixed for tenants, owners etc. of the shops under the heading of commercial
sites. Admittedly, those tenants under the Galiara Scheme, which came into
force later on were allotted sites at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard, along
with various subsidies.
27. In this way, there are two classification of oustees, which needs to
clarified and understood:-
Classification Description
Oustees of Operation Blue Star (June 1984) — These are the
First
Classification
present petitioners who were displaced as a result of Operation
Blue Star.
Oustees as a result of the Galiara Scheme (1988) — These
persons were displaced four years after Operation Blue Star,
Second
Classification
pursuant to the Galiara Scheme, which was implemented in a
planned and phased manner.
28. A conscious decision was taken by the State of Punjab through the
Chief Secretary in the year 1991, whereby it was decided that the oustees of
Operation Blue Star, who are the present petitioners, were to be processed on
same lines as that of the oustees of the Galiara Scheme. The said decision was
reiterated thereafter and in one of the letters reproduced above, a meeting was
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -27-
held under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Department of
Local Bodies, wherein it was also decided that the petitioners should be
given the same benefits as those available to the oustees of the Galiara Scheme.
It is therefore shocking as to why the petitioners have been discriminated
against vis-a-vis oustees of the Galiara Scheme, which rather came into force
later on, whereas the petitioners were at a much more disadvantageous position
because they were displaced in June, 1984 when Operation Blue Star took
place.
29. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat
Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. versus State of U.P., 1979 (2) SCC 409 discussed as to
how far and to what extent is the State bound by the doctrine of promissory
estoppel and held that under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt
from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct
and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or
expediency, fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it nor claim to be
the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement of
the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen. It was further
reiterated that the Government, committed to the rule of law, cannot
claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppel and cannot say that it
is under no obligation to act in a manner that is fair and just or that it is not
bound by consideration of “honesty and good faith”, that in fact the
Government should be held to a high “standard of rectangular rectitude while
dealing with its citizens.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -28-
30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in another judgment of Union of India
versus M/s Unicorn Industries, 2019(10) SCC 575 held that while considering
the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the
fundamental principle of equity must forever be present in the mind of the
Court while considering the applicability of the doctrine and that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel must yield when the equity so demands and when it can be
shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that it would be
inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise,
assurance or representation. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced as under:
“14. In Kasinka Trading, this Court was considering
the case of the appellant, who were manufacturing certain
products, requiring PVC resin as one of the raw materials
for its manufacturing process. By Notification No. 66 dated
15.03.1979 issued under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962
which is pari materia with section 5A of the Central Excise
Act, the PVC resin was exempted from basic import duty. The
exemption was to be effective till 31.03.1981. However, by
Notification No. 205 dated 16.10.1980 issued under
section 25 of the Customs Act, the exemption granted earlier
came to be withdrawn. A challenge similar to the one which
is raised herein was raised before this Court. This Court
observed thus:
"12. It has been settled by this Court that the doctrine
of promissory estoppel is applicable against the
Government also particularly where it is necessary to
prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine,
however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -29-
Government or the public authority "to carry out a
representation or promise which is contrary to law or
which was outside the authority or power of the officer
of the Government or of the public authority to make".
There is preponderance of judicial opinion that to
invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear,
sound and positive foundation must be laid in the
petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and
that bald expressions, without any supporting
material, to the effect that the doctrine is attracted
because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its
position relying on the assurance of the Government
would not be sufficient to press into aid the
doctrine. In our opinion, the doctrine of promissory
estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the
courts are bound to consider all aspects including the
results sought to be achieved and the public good at
large, because while considering the applicability of
the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the
fundamental principles of equity must for ever be
present to the mind of the court, while considering the
applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield
when the equity so demands if it can be shown having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that
it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the
public authority to its promise, assurance or
representation."
15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that
the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the
abstract and the courts are bound to see all aspects
including the objective to be achieved and the public good at
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -30-
large. It has been held that while considering the
applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and
the fundamental principle of equity must forever be present
in the mind of the Court while considering the applicability
of the doctrine. It has been held that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel must yield when the equity so demands
and when it can be shown having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, that it would be inequitable to
hold the Government or the public authority to its promise,
assurance or representation. After considering the earlier
judgments on the issue, which have been heavily relied upon
by the assesses, this Court has observed thus:
"21. The power to grant exemption from payment of
duty, additional duty etc. under the Act, as already
noticed, flows from the provisions of Section 25(1) of
the Act. The power to exempt includes the power to
modify or withdraw the same. The liability to pay
customs duty or additional duty under the Act arises
when the taxable event occurs. They are then subject
to the payment of duty as prevalent on the date of the
entry of the goods. An exemption notification issued
under Section 25 of the Act had the effect of
suspending the collection of customs duty. It does not
make items which are subject to levy of customs duty
etc. as items not leviable to such duty. It only suspends
the levy and collection of customs duty, etc., wholly or
partially and subject to such conditions as may be laid
down in the notification by the Government in "public
interest". Such an exemption by its very nature is
susceptible of being revoked or modified or subjected
to other conditions. The supersession or revocation of
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -31-
an exemption notification in the "public interest" is an
exercise of the statutory power of the State under the
law itself as is obvious from the language of Section
25 of the Act. Under the General Clauses Act an
authority which has the power to issue a notification
has the undoubted power to rescind or modify the
notification in a like manner."
31. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down following
principles governing the doctrine of promissory estoppel in State of Himachal
Pradesh and others versus M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog, 2026 AIR Supreme
Court 3191. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as
under:-
“ 59. Upon a conspectus of the above authorities
discussed in IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra) and other cases
as dealt above, the following principles governing the
doctrine of promissory estoppel may be regarded as well-
settled:
(i) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a principle
evolved by equity to avoid injustice. It operates not in the
realm of contract, nor within the technical confines of
estoppel under the law of evidence, but upon the broader
considerations of fairness, justice and good conscience;
(ii) Where one party, by words or conduct, makes to
another a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous promise,
intended to create legal relations or affect a legal
relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that
it would be acted upon, and it is in fact so acted upon, the
promise becomes binding upon the promisor;
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -32-
(iii) The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine
whose foundation is that an unconscionable departure by
one party from the subject matter of an assumption which
may be of fact or law, present or future, and which has been
adopted by the other party as the basis of some course of
conduct, act or omission, should not be allowed to pass
muster. And the relief to be given in cases involving the
doctrine of promissory estoppels contains a degree of
flexibility which would ultimately render justice to the
aggrieved party;
(iv) The doctrine is not merely defensive in nature.
Under Indian law, it may itself furnish a cause of action and
can be affirmatively enforced where equity so requires;
(v) It is not necessary, in order to attract the doctrine,
that the promisee should prove actual detriment. It is
sufficient that the promisee has altered his position, acting in
reliance upon the promise;
(vi) The alteration of position may consist in making
substantial investments, incurring liabilities, establishing
industrial infrastructure, entering into agreements, or
otherwise rearranging one's affairs on the faith of the
representation;
(vii) The doctrine applies with full force against the
State, its departments, statutory corporations and
instrumentalities, including authorities falling within Article
12 of the Constitution, which cannot arbitrarily resile from a
solemn representation upon which another has acted;
(viii) Where the State or its instrumentalities frame
industrial or fiscal incentive schemes with the avowed object
of attracting investment and establishing industries, the
representations contained therein are intended to induce
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -33-
entrepreneurs to act upon them, and such representations are
enforceable. Once an entrepreneur, relying upon such
representation, establishes an industrial unit, commences
commercial production, or otherwise satisfies the
eligibility conditions during the currency of the scheme, and
the State agencies recognise them as being eligible,
the promise crystallises, and an enforceable equity arises
in its favour. Whether a benefit has accrued or not in
such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case;
(ix) The grant of an exemption, concession or
incentive under a statutory scheme is ordinarily defeasible,
and the Government is competent to modify or revoke the
same in exercise of the very power under which it was
granted. Thus, what is granted can ordinarily be withdrawn.
However, the Government may be precluded from doing so
on the ground of promissory estoppel, which principle itself
remains subject to considerations of equity and public
interest.
(x) Where a specific sanction or approval of incentive,
or eligibility certificate has been issued in favour of an
individual enterprise, and the enterprise has acted thereon
by making a substantial investment, the promisor is all the
more firmly bound by its representation;
(xi) The doctrine rests upon the larger constitutional
principle that State action must be fair, non-arbitrary, and
consistent; governmental assurances are not empty
declarations, but solemn representations on the faith of
which citizens regulate their affairs; and
(xii) The ultimate object of the doctrine is to prevent
manifest injustice and to ensure that a party, particularly the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -34-
State, does not act inconsistently to the prejudice of one who
has relied upon its promise and altered his position

irretrievably.”
32. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that the rationale,
especially when the matter pertains to displacement in such peculiar
circumstances by a welfare State, the doctrine rests upon the larger
constitutional principle that State action must be fair, non-arbitrary and
consistent and that governmental assurances are not empty declarations, but
solemn representations on the faith of which citizens regulate their affairs and
the ultimate object of the doctrine is to prevent manifest injustice and to ensure
that a party, particularly the State, does not act inconsistently to the prejudice of
one who has relied upon its promise and altered his position irretrievably.
33. It was also discussed in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment in M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog’s case (supra) that it is the
unfairness and arbitrariness of the State which has to be seen while deliberating
upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel as well.
34. Although the doctrine of promissory estoppel may not apply in
stricto sensu in the facts and circumstances of the present case as it was not a
case of altering of position after promise was made but the doctrine of
promissory estoppel is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. Neither
does it operates in the realm of contract nor within the technical confines of
estoppel under the law of evidence but in fact, it operates upon the broader
considerations of fairness, justice and good conscience and the relief that is to
be given in cases involving the doctrine of promissory estoppel contains a
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -35-
degree of flexibility which would ultimately render justice to the aggrieved
party. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not merely defensive in nature, in
fact under the Indian Law, it may itself furnish a cause of action and can be
affirmatively enforced where equity so requires. Therefore, the rationale and
underlying principle behind the doctrine will be applicable considering the
seriousness and extraordinary circumstances of the present cases. There was no
justification for the State of Punjab to have arbitrarily fixed rates @38,400/- per
square yard in the year 2012, when the Government through its Chief Secretary
on 28.11.1991 and Principal Secretary on 14.09.2006, by way of above
reproduced letters, decided that these oustees of Operation Blue Star in 1984
will be treated at par with the oustees of subsequent Galiara Project, who were
allowed @ 1,000/- per square yard. It is in this context, the State Government is
rather estopped from putting the petitioners at a disadvantageous position by
creating an artificial discrimination. The action of the State is ex facie unfair,
discriminatory and arbitrary as it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
35. This Court is of the considered view that the State Government had
been totally unfair, discriminatory and unsympathetic towards the petitioners
and the similarly situated oustees, who were displaced by compulsion and force
due to Operation Blue Star. There was no justifiable reason for the
State Government to depart from the rates that had been fixed under the
Galiara Scheme and made applicable to the oustees of 1984 Operation
Blue Star.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -36-
36. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it fit
and proper to dispose of the present writ petitions keeping in view the
peculiar and special circumstances of the present cases and in order to advance
substantial justice, by invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, by issuing the following directions:-
(i) The petitioners, who are the displaced persons and oustees
during Operation Blue Star, shall be allotted the booths/sites at the
same rate as that of oustees under the Galiara Scheme i.e.
Rs.1,000/- per square yard, which rate this Court deems it fit and
proper to fix for the petitioners. The petitioners shall also be
entitled for all the other benefits of Galiara Scheme.
(ii) Those 18 persons who have already accepted the allotment
by paying the entire amount at the rate of Rs.38,400/- per
square yard shall not be disturbed. The 5 persons who have
not even been considered under the Scheme because of
non-availability of space at the dedicated site shall also be offered
alternate sites by the State at the same rate as aforesaid i.e.
Rs.1,000/- per square yard, along with other benefits of Galiara
Scheme.
(iii) The amount of Rs.10,000/- per square yard, which has been
deposited by the petitioners before Hon’ble Supreme Court and
which has been transferred to this Court along with interest, shall
be adjusted against the aforesaid total cost of the shop and in case
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-7476-2000 (O&M), CWP-3765-2002 (O&M),
CWP-15467-2004 (O&M) and CWP-12788-2008 (O&M) -37-
any refund is to be made by the State to the petitioners, the same
shall be made accordingly.
37. We have issued the aforesaid directions in view of the rigour and
hardship which the petitioners have faced for the last 42 years, which this
Court is of the firm view have infringed upon their Fundamental Rights,
including the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 19 of the Constitution
of India.
38. The aforesaid exercise of allotment of the sites at the aforesaid rate,
including all consequential formalities relating to the registration of sale deeds,
delivery of possession etc., shall be completed within a period of two months
from today.
39. List these cases for compliance purposes after two months.
40. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
41. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected
cases.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
(PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN)
07.09.2026 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.10 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.