IMPORTANT POINT
Reasonable belief, after due enquiry, contemplated u/s 38(l)(i) of Punjab Town Improvement Act would envisage that persons who were reputed to be known as owners of immovable property proposed to be acquired, were the actual owner of property.

ORDER

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in RSA No. 2071/92 on August 2, 1993. The admitted facts are that the respondent-Trust had framed a Scheme for providing passage to Guru Nanak Stadium from the main road, namely, Madan Mohan Malviya Road under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, the "Act"). The Scheme in that behalf was framed and notices were issued of the factum of framing of the Scheme; objections were invited and the Scheme was published under Section 78 in the weekly newspaper s for three consecutive weeks and also in the State Official Gazette. It was also published in the newspapers in the locality within the specified period. The notice of the Scheme was sent to the President of the Municipal Committee and to the Medical Officer under subsection 2(b) of Section 36 of the Act. No objections in that behalf came to be made. Thereafter, the Government had approved the Scheme under Section 40 of the Act. By operation of Section 42(2) of the Act, the approval of the Scheme having been published under Section 42(1), it became conclusive evidence that the Scheme had been duly framed and sanctioned. Thereafter, the proceedings under Schedule to the Act read with Section 59 were taken up for acquisition of the land proposed to be acquired under the Scheme. Section 38 of the Act envisages compliance of the notice of the publication in that behalf. It reads as under :

"38. Notice of proposed acquisition of kind :- (1) During the thirty days next following the first day on which any notice is published under section 36 in respect of any Scheme under this Act the trust shall serve a notice on:-

(i) every person whom the trust has reason to believe after due enquiry to be the owner of any immovable property which it is proposed to acquire in executing the Scheme.

(ii) the occupier (who need not be named) of such premises as the trust proposes to acquire in executing the Scheme.

(2) Such notice shall :-

(a) state that the trust proposes to acquire such property for the purposes of carrying out a Scheme under this Act, and

(b) require such person, if he objects to such acquisition, to state his reasons in writing within a period of sixty days from the service of the notice.

(3) Every such notice shall be signed by, or by the order of the Chairman."

2. There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that service of the notice on every person whom the Trust had reason to believe, after due enquiry, to be the owner of the immovable property which the Trust proposes to acquire in execution of the Scheme, or the occupier of such premises, is necessary. It would, therefore, be necessary that the Trust must have reason to believe, after due enquiry, that the person to be affected is the owner of the immovable property proposed to be acquired. In this case, the admitted position is that the disputed property is a vacant site. The appellant had purchased the property on January 24, 1985. The Scheme was approved by the Government on March 19, 1985. It would be obvious that the proposal under Section 36 was widely published in the Gazette, weekly and daily newspapers and notice thereof was also given to the Municipality before the appellants purchased the property. It is not in dispute that after the purchase made by the appellant, his name was not mutated in the records of the Municipality before the approval was granted by the State Government. The question, therefore, is: whether the failure to serve the notice on the appellant vitiates the approved Scheme ? In our view, it does not.

3. It is seen that the Municipality was sent notice of the proposed acquisition as required under Section 36 and also under Section 38 of the Act. When such presumption was made, it would be obvious that the person in possession would be aware of the proceedings proposed for the execution of the Scheme and