Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 829
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permod Kohli, J.
Satya Devi
Versus
Municipal Committee
Decided On : APRIL 3, 2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of taking over more than 35% of an owner's land for a Town Planning Scheme without compensation, as per the provisions of Section 192(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act.
Headnote:
Town Planning Scheme - Land Acquisition - Punjab Municipal Act, Section 192
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the action of the respondents in notifying a Town Planning Scheme, which sought to transfer a portion of the petitioner's land for public road use. The petitioners alleged violations of the Punjab Municipal Act, including lack of public notice, non-sanctioning by the State Government, and non-preparation of ownership statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that almost 100% of the petitioner's plot was being utilized for the road, which violated the statutory restriction of not including more than 35% of an owner's land in the Scheme and not taking away more than 25% without compensation. The court also noted that the relevant provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act had been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in a previous case.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the Town Planning Scheme, the violation of statutory restrictions on land inclusion and compensation, and the timing of the Scheme's sanctioning by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the action of the respondents in taking over the entire plot of the petitioners and not paying compensation for the land beyond 25% was illegal and violative of Section 192(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act. The court also considered the prospective nature of the Supreme Court's judgment on the relevant Act provisions.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Notification/Scheme intending to take away the entire plot of the petitioners was quashed. The respondents were directed not to transfer or take over more than 35% of the petitioner's plot area and to pay compensation for the area beyond 25% within a specified period.
Permod Kohli, J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the action of the respondents in notifying a Town Planning Scheme of Area No. 9 Part-I whereby plot of the land of the petitioner measuring 730 square yards out of total plot area of 7S0 square yards is sought to be transferred for utilization in the public road.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner purchased plot measuring 750 square yards comprising Khasra No. 1990 situated at Bhatinda from Madan Lal son of Ramji Dass vide Registered Sale Deed No. 839 dated 20.5.1971. Said Madan Lal had earlier purchased this plot from one Jangir Singh son of Sher Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid sale in favour of the petitioners Mutation No. 16008 has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners which is duly reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78.Respondent No. 1 formulated a Town Planning Scheme for the area No. 9 part 1. It is alleged that on coming to know of the said Scheme, the petitioners applied to respondent No. 1 on 8.9.1983 for demarcation of their plot. The application was returned in original by respondent No. 1 with the endorsement according to the Scheme leaving a small portion, the rest of the plot falls under the 100 ft wide road." The petitioners have placed on record a site plan of the area showing the plot under the Scheme and it appears that only small portion of the plot that too a corner is out of the Scheme. It is stated that 730 square yards out of 750 square yards is intended to be transferred for the road. The petitioners have challenged the scheme and the action of the respondents, inter alia, on the grounds - (1) that under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, not more than 35% of the built area can be included in the Scheme and not more than 25% of the area can be taken away, without payment of the compensation. (2) No public notice has been issued before the formulation and implementation of the Scheme. (3). The Scheme has not been sanctioned by the State Government as required under Section 190(2)(iii). (4) No ownership statement has been prepared as required under Section 192 of the Act.
3. Respondent No. 1 in its written statement has admitted the formulation of the Scheme and its implementation. It is, however, stated that the petitioners have not placed on record copy of the sale deed and thus they have no locus to file the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 has also pleaded that various works under the Scheme have been carried Out. A massive construction has been raised by various owners. The Scheme is for the public utility and for the benefit of the public at large. Respondents, however, admitted that the petitioners plot has come in the road and even the demarcation report is also admitted. However, it is stated that at the time of framing of the Scheme, no plot of the petitioners existed. The respondents, however, stated that there is no Scheme of 1983 and there is only one Scheme of 1977 for which objections were invited by public notice issued on 15.7.1977. The Scheme was duly sanctioned by the Government on 17.2.1979 and published in Government Gazette.
4. The entire case of the petitioners is based upon the alleged violation of provisions of Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act which reads as under:
192. Building Scheme: (1) The Committee may and if so required by the Deputy Commissioner shall, within six months of the date of such requisition, draw up a building scheme for built areas, and a town plain scheme for unbuilt areas which may among other things provide for following matters namely: (a) die restriction of the erection or re-erection of the building or any class of buildings in the whole or any part of me municipality and of the use to which they may be put;
(b) the prescription of a building line on either side or both sides of any street existing or proposed; and
(c) the amount of land in such unbuilt area which shall be transferred to the Committee for public purposes including use as public streets by
