Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 201
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jasbir Singh and Rakesh Kumar Garg JJ.
Arun Kumar
Versus
State Of Punjab
CWP No. 2570 of 2004,
Decided On : JANUARY 19, 2011
Acquisition of Land--Objection--Any irregularity committed by any committee of the Trust while disposing of the functions of the trust cannot be said to be vitiated by virtue of Section 101(E) of the Act.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, S.72(E)--Acquisition of Land--Objections--Petitioner did not file any objections pursuance to the notification issued under Section 36 of the Act--Therefore, even if no opportunity was given to them while annulling the resolution by the Govt, no prejudice has been caused to them as there was no stage/occasion for the petitioners to substantiate their objections which were never raised. (Para 8)
(B) Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, S.42--In the present case, there is no colorable exercise of powers while acquiring the land of the petitioners--Thus, the effect of the sanctioning scheme and publishing of the same under Section 42 of the Act is, that there has been full compliance with the relevant provisions pertaining to the framing and sanction of the scheme and the same cannot be found faulted with--Held; that it is not possible for this court to interfere with the said satisfaction of the authorities concerned--Moreover, there is no ground on which the petitioners can maintain that their land should be exempted from acquisition. (Paras 13 & 14)
(C) Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, Ss.12, 15, 101(E)--Acquisition of Land--Objection--Chairman was duly authorized by resolution to hear the objections filed by the landowners--After hearing the objections, the report of the chairman, was put up before the Trust and the same was approved by the trust in its meeting--Any irregularity committed by any committee of the Trust while disposing of the functions of the trust cannot be said to be vitiated by virtue of Section 101(E) of the Act. (Para 17)
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. By way of these writ petitions i.e. CWP No.2570, 4272,10823, 12439,15187 all of 2004 and CWP No.19700 of 2006, challenge has been laid to notifications dated 05.1.2001 (Annexure P8), issued under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 17.1.2002 issued under section 42 of the Act (Annexure P14) and award dated 16.1.2004 (Annexure P22) whereby land/plots/houses of the petitioners were acquired for a development scheme known as Ring Road Phase-I Development Scheme. Since common questions of law on similar facts have been raised in all these writ petitions, the same are being decided by one common judgment. However, the facts are taken from CWP No.2570 of 2004.
2. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners who are 129 in number, own small pieces of lands which they had purchased. The aforesaid plots fall within the municipal limits of Bathinda and all the civic amenities such as electricity, sewerage and telephone etc. are available in these localities. As per averments, many of the petitioners are residing :n their houses, built on these plots, after getting their building plans sanctioned by the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation, and many petitioners raised construction of their buildings after depositing development charges with Municipal Council/Corporation. It was further averred that some of the petitioners have raised A-class construction on their respective plots.
3. Respondent No.2 i.e. Improvement Trust, Bathinda, passed resolution No.103 dated 12.12.2000 giving approval for framing a scheme for residential and commercial use on an area of 45.57 acres as per schedule of boundaries of the scheme. Thereafter, first notice under section 36 of the Act was published on 5.1.2001 of the scheme framed under sections 24,25,28(2) of the Act, giving the boundaries of the scheme. The objections to the scheme were also invited from the affected persons. The objections were heard by the Chairman of the Trust on 9/10.7.2001. Thereafter, vide notification dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure P 14) the development scheme which was sanctioned by the government was notified under section 42 of the Act, with the condition that no such vacant plots are to be adjusted which are included in the boundaries at the time of notification under section 36 of the Act and the layout plan drawing of this scheme bearing No. 41/STP9(S) BTI/2001 dated 24.12.2001 was amended accordingly.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid declaration issued under section 42 of the Act, the land acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Bathinda pronounced Award No.l of 2004 dated 16.1.2004 determining compensation of the acquired land in favour of the landowners/ petitioners. Petitioners thereafter, approached this Court by way of these writ petitions challenging the aforesaid proceedings on the ground that the impugned award was passed by respondent No.2 without issuing any notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioners were deprived from having any opportunity to file their claim for compensation and that the impugned award was passed hurriedly on the last date and with a mala fide intention. Moreover, the said award was an incomplete award and respondents have treated similarly placed persons differently while releasing some of the buildings which were in existence at the time of publication of the notice under section 36 of the Act and even not releasing built up houses of the petitioners. It was also stated that the layout plan was not prepared correctly as all the A-class buildings which were in existence at the time of publication of notice under section 36 of the Act, were not shown. By placing reliance upon Annexure P 12, it was submitted that all the A-Class buildings were not depicted in the layout plan as a result thereof decision of respondent No.2 covered only a few individuals whereas many others were ignored. It was also submitted t
