Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, provides for a time limit of five years for the execution of schemes from the date of their notification under Section 42 of the Act. The State Government may extend the time limit if it is satisfied that it is beyond the control of the Trust to execute the scheme within the said period.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The true import of Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 , inserted by war of Amendment by Haryana Act No. 17 of 1973 - is the significant question which falls for determination in this reference to the Full Bench in the set of 4 connected civil writ petitions. Equally at issue is some apparent discordance of views within this Court on the Point.

2. The learned counsel for the Partite, are agreed on the similarity of the facts and the identity of the legal issues in those cases and this judgment will, therefore, govern all of them. It consequently suffices to pick the matrix of facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 467 of 1982 (Nawal Singh V/s. The Administrator. Municipal Committee).

3. The Charkhi Dadri Improvement Trust. Charkhi Dadri. Prepared a scheme dated 23rd January. 1976. titled as "The Development Scheme No. IB" for constructing a Harijan Colony near Gaushala Gandhi Ashram and Delhi Narnaul Road under Sections 24 and 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act ). The said scheme was duly published under Section 42 (1) of the Act in the Official Gazette dated 6th February, 1976. The land of the petitioner situated within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri upon which the Petitioner had constructed a residential house came within the said scheme. In Pursuance thereof the award of the Collector was announced on 3rd November, 1976.

4. It is, however, the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent-Trust thereafter has not taken any steps to execute this scheme and the petitioner has neither been dispossessed from his land and the house nor has possession of land and the house been taken from other owners similarly affected. It is averred that instead of carrying out the scheme. the respondents planned to sell plots for 302 houses, 44 booths and 17 shop-cum-flats to the general public by auction and, in fact, on 26th December 1981, the first auction was held when 91 plots for houses were sold to the general public and the second auction was later held on 8th January, 1982. The petitioner informed respondent No. 1 on the dates aforesaid that the action of plots to the general public as contrary to the scheme which itself aid not been either executed or extended beyond the period of five years expiring on 23rd January, 1981. However, the petitioner was wrongly informed that the scheme had been duly and legaly extended beyond that date. Later the petitioner was able to secure a copy of resolution No. 1 dated 29th January, 1981 (Annexure P-3) wherein specific mention is made of the fact that the scheme could not be implemented and sanction should be secured from the Haryana Government for an extension two years up to 5th January. 1983, to implement the same. Later vide Annexure P-5 a reminder dated 27th August, 1981 by the Administrator to the Government was issued for the grant of the said extension for two years. On these premises it is highlighted that undoubtedly the scheme has not even been remotely executed and further that the same has not been act extended beyond 3rd January. 1981, and thus being violative of Section, 44-A of the Act, the same should be quashed.

5. Despite some specious defenees, the broad factual ground remains un-controverted in the reply of the respondents to the writ petition. The framing of the scheme and its publication in the Gazette on 6th February, 1976, is admitted as well as the fact that the peitioner s land and house come within its ambit. In Para 6 of the reply, it is averred that a part of the land governed by the scheme has been allotted to Paras Ram Net Ram Kalania Balika Vidva Mandir for constructing a school building for children and two houses were under construction as a sample to accommodate the weaker sections. The factum of subsequent auctions to the general Public on 26th December, 1981 and 8th January. 1982 is admitted. but the stand taken is that a part of the area under this scheme was still to b