Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SURYA KANT, A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
BHATINDA IMPROVEMENT TRUST – Appellant
Versus
MADAN LAL – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 1990 (O&M) and X-Obj. No.17 of 1991
Decided on : 31-08-2016
For the Appellant :Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with Samrath Sagar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sarvshri J.R. Mittal, Rupinder S. Khosla and Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocates with Sarvshri Dhirinder Chopra, Lalit Sharma, Mohan Sharma, Ajay Aggarwal, Alok Mittal, Sumit Goel, Sarvesh Malik and Rajiv Mittal, Advocates
The publication of the notifications in the newspapers and the official gazette was sufficient notice to the petitioners, and the acquisition could not be quashed for want of service of notice under Section 38 of the Act and no opportunity to file objections.
Headnote:
The Court held that the acquisition of land by the Bhatinda Improvement Trust (BIT) was valid and upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found that the notices under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (the Act) were not served on the original writ petitioners, but that this did not invalidate the acquisition as the publication of the notifications in the newspapers and the official gazette was sufficient notice. The Court also held that the order of suspension of the resolution of the Trust did not render the publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act null and void, as the Deputy Commissioner had the power to make an order of revocation thereof. The Court further held that the acquisition could not be quashed for want of service of notice under Section 38 of the Act and no opportunity to file objections, as the petitioners had full knowledge of the wide publications made and could have filed objections if they desired. The Court also held that the period during which the resolution of the Trust remained suspended could not be excluded for determining the period of three years mandated by the proviso to Section 42 of the Act, as the order of suspension was not an order of the Court. The Court, however, held that the acquisition in respect of the second set of cases, where the notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued beyond three years from the first publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act, could not be quashed applying the doctrine of 'utilitarianism', as the scheme of the Trust was related to the year 1984, the award was passed in 1988, and the execution of the scheme had almost been completed.
Fact of the Case:
The Bhatinda Improvement Trust (BIT) acquired land for a town planning scheme. The original writ petitioners challenged the acquisition, and the High Court quashed the acquisition. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the acquisition. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court again decided in favor of the BIT.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the acquisition of land by the BIT was valid and upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the notices under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (the Act) were served on the original writ petitioners? 2. Whether the order of suspension of the resolution of the Trust rendered the publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act null and void? 3. Whether the acquisition could be quashed for want of service of notice under Section 38 of the Act and no opportunity to file objections? 4. Whether the period during which the resolution of the Trust remained suspended could be excluded for determining the period of three years mandated by the proviso to Section 42 of the Act? 5. Whether the acquisition in respect of the second set of cases, where the notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued beyond three years from the first publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act, could be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notices under Section 38 of the Act were not served on the original writ petitioners, but that this did not invalidate the acquisition as the publication of the notifications in the newspapers and the official gazette was sufficient notice. 2. The Court held that the order of suspension of the resolution of the Trust did not render the publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act null and void, as the Deputy Commissioner had the power to make an order of revocation thereof. 3. The Court held that the acquisition could not be quashed for want of service of notice under Section 38 of the Act and no opportunity to file objections, as the petitioners had full knowledge of the wide publications made and could have filed objections if they desired. 4. The Court held that the period during which the resolution of the Trust remained suspended could not be excluded for determining the period of three years mandated by the proviso to Section 42 of the Act, as the order of suspension was not an order of the Court. 5. The Court held that the acquisition in respect of the second set of cases, where the notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued beyond three years from the first publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Act, could not be quashed applying the doctrine of 'utilitarianism', as the scheme of the Trust was related to the year 1984, the award was passed in 1988, and the execution of the scheme had almost been completed.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the BIT and dismissed the cross objections filed by the original petitioners. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed.
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
1. These Letters Patent Appeal Nos.44 to 50, 466 and 467, all of 1990, were filed by Bhatinda Improvement Trust, Bhatinda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') in this Court in the year 1990 against the judgment and order dated 20.10.1989, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petitions quashing the acquisition of land that was acquired by the Trust. There were two land acquisitions for the scheme to be implemented by the Trust. One was in respect of 16.44 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the first set of cases') and the other related to 25.21 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the second set of cases').
2. This Court had decided all these appeals, Civil Writ Petitions as well as Contempt Petitions by judgment and order dated 02.04.2012. The Letters Patent Appeals were allowed and the acquisition as aforesaid, of the land was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The appellate judgment was put to challenge by the aggrieved parties before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 1057-1058 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8050-8051 of 2013)(CC Nos.8763-8764 of 2012), 1059 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15859 of 2012), 1060 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15912 of 2012), 1061 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8052 of 2013)(CC No.9157 of 2012), 1062-1063 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8053- 8054 of 2013)(CC Nos.9280-9281 of 2012), 1064 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8055 of 2013)(CC No.9484 of 2012), 1065 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.22269 of 2012), 1066 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.22271 of 2012), 1067-1071 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.25221- 25225 of 2012), 1072 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.25232 of 2012) and 1073-1074 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8056-8057 of 2013)(CC Nos.17476-17477 of 2012). The Apex Court on 08.02.2013, set aside the appellate judgment of this Court and remitted all the matters to this Court for fresh consideration by leaving all the questions involved in these matters open to be again adjudicated by this Court. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion from the said order made by the Apex Court, which reads thus:-
"4. Having regard to the dispute whether notices under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust, 1922 were duly served on the petitioners and, if served, whether any objections were filed by them, Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel for the Bhatinda Improvement Trust (BIT), submits that BIT has no objection if the matters are appropriately considered by the High Court again."
"7. All questions in the above matters are left open to be agitated before the High Court."
3. It is in the light of the above background facts, all these matters were listed before this court for hearing.
4. This Court commenced the hearing and was required to hear these matters on almost day to day basis on various dates after the regular work. After completion of hearing, the matters were closed for orders on 31.05.2016.
5. At the outset, having regard to the direction made by the Apex Court, inter alia, in para-4 above, it became expedient to find out whether the notices under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were served on the original writ petitioners and then to find out if served, whether any objections were filed by them. Accordingly the counsel for the Trust was put on notice to be ready with the records of the Trust for finding out the factual position. The revelations, upon seeing the record, are culled out and shown in the relevant paragraph (III)—Non service of individual notices.
6. Reverting back, it is seen from the record that the "first set" of matters; namely, LPA Nos.44 to 50 of 1990 and Cross Objections Nos.17, 18 and 19 of 1991 filed by the original writ petitioners in LPA Nos.44 of 1990, 48 of 1990 and 49 of 1990, arising out of the judgment and order dated 20.10.
