The failure to supply copies of documents requested by the petitioners was a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 36(3) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. The acquisition of a large area of land for the sole purpose of providing access to a small area of land was arbitrary and could not be sustained.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. These three petitions viz. C. W. P. Nos. 16161 and 15375 of 1990 and 1616 of 1991 have been filed to stifle the third attempt of the Improvement Trust, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) to acquire the land of the petitioners. Commonality of questions of fact and law warrants disposal of these petitions by one judgment. The facts as given in C. W. P. No. 16161 of 1990 may be briefly noticed.

2. In 1963, a development scheme was notified by the Trust under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It covered an area of about 70 acres. The scheme was approved by the State Government in the year 1967. Nine writ petitions, including C. W. P. Nos. 1227 of 1975 and 1577 of 1976 were filed in this Court against this acquisition. All these Civil Writ Petitions were allowed vide judgment dated August 28, 1980 by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. Letters Patent Appeal against this judgment having failed, the Trust filed Special Leave Petitions Nos. 4127 to 4136 of 1981 in Honble the Supreme Court of India. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on July 19,

3. On October 17, 1985. the Trust passed a resolution No. 66. In the proposal put up to the Trust it was inter alia observed that "according to the present position there is no way to the area which is in possession of the Trust under this Scheme. Thus it is very necessary to renotify the quashed Pockets. It is placed before the Trust for consideration and approval." Necessary approval was granted. In pursuance to this resolution, a notice under Section 36 was published in the Punjab Government gazette of January 30, 1987. A copy of this notice is at Annexure P-3. The State Government, however, did not approve this scheme. As a result the second attempt of the Trust to acquire the land in question failed.

4. On April 6, 1989, the Trust initiated its third attempt. It passed a resolution No. 9 for promulgating a development scheme under Sections 24 and 28 of the Act. A notice under Section 36 was published in the Tribune dated May 11, 1989. In all material particulars it was almost identical to the one published in the Gazette of January 30, 1987. Thereafter, notices under Section 38 of the Act were issued to the various persons. A copy of the notice dated June 5, 1989 issued to the petitioner is at Annexure P-9. It is averred that besides raising objections to the acquisition of the land, the petitioner submitted an application dated August 4 1989 (Annexure P-11) for supply of copies of certain documents. It is averred that in spite of reminder dated January 9, 1990, the copies were not supplied to the petitioner. Finally, the Government sanctioned the scheme on June 29, 3990. As a result, these petitions have been filed to challenge the acquisition on different grounds. In C.W.P No. 16161 of 1990, it has been specifically averred in paragraphs 9 and 13(v) that the copies of the documents have not been supplied. In C.W.P. No. 1616 of 1991, an averment has been made in paragraph . 6 to a similar effect. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was not supplied with the requisite documents in spite of a request having been made in writing through a Registered letter sent by Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate on August 2, 1989. In all the three petitions, the acquisition proceedings have been Challenged as being arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Act.

5. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the State. However, separate written statements have been filed in all the three petitions on behalf of the Trust. It has been inter alia averred that the original notification having been quashed by this Court and the 2nd notification under Section 36 having lapsed due to non-sanction by the State Government, the Trust is competent to acquire the land. It has been further averred that the objections raised by different persons were duly considered and decided by the Improvemen