Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Ludhiana Improvement Trust and another - Petitioner
Versus
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Coop House Building Society Ltd. and others – Respondent
CWP No.3977 of 2018(O&M)
Decided On : 12-5-2021
JUDGEMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-Society claims to be the owner of land measuring 16800 sq. yds. located at Village Dugri, District Ludhiana. The Government of Punjab has enacted the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act') for the improvement and expansion of towns in a planned manner in the State. Section 3 thereof provides that the duty to carry out the provisions of the Act in any local area shall vest in a Board to be called 'the (name of town) Improvement Trust'. Every such Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. In the exercise of the aforesaid powers, the petitioner-Ludhiana Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-Trust') was created. In order to carry out a planned development of approximately 400 acres of land located at Ludhiana, the petitioner-trust proposed a scheme. The requisite notifications under Section 36 and 42 of 'the 1922 Act' declaring its intention to acquire an approximate area of 400 acres of land for 'Model Town Extension Part-II' scheme were published. Out of the afore-said land, land measuring 16800 sq. yds. belongs to the respondent-Society. Similarly, individual pieces of land belonging to 5 other societies were also proposed to be acquired. The respondent-Society challenged the proposed compulsory acquisition before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5166 of 1975 which was withdrawn on 03.05.1976. The Government vide a notification dated 25.06.1981 decided to release the entire land, measuring 16800 Sq.yds., owned by the respondent-Society from compulsory acquisition, subject to the following terms and conditions:- • that the lay out of the proposed co-operative Housing Colony will form part of overall lay out of the Scheme. However, while framing the overall lay out, an effort would be made to cater to the requirements of the Co-operative Society as far as possible; • that development charges will be paid by the Society to the Trust on the basis of rates fixed by the Trust and the development of the area exempted will be carried out by the Improvement Trust; • that utilization in the area exempted in favour of the Co operative Society will be to the same extent as the land utilization in the overall scheme. For instance, the land left for roads, parks and other common purposes would be to the same extent as left in overall scheme. Consequently, the area under plots would be about 45 to 55% of the entire area exempted; • that exemption will be in respect of bonafide Housing Societies and that its individual members will be giving an undertaking that they will not transfer, lease, or otherwise alienate plot for a period of ten years. Not more than one plot will be given to an individual member.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resolution passed by the petitioner-Trust allotting plots to the respondent-Society was obtained by playing fraud and deceit. The court also found that the respondent-Society had concealed or omitted to disclose relevant facts in its petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: A. “If it is found in the subsequent proceedings filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India that the order of the Tribunal has been obtained by playing fraud/deceit, then, whether the Constitutional Court is required to declare such order as non-executable or not”? B. Whether concealment/omission to disclose irrelevant facts must lead to the dismissal of a meritorious petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if it is found that an order of a tribunal has been obtained by playing fraud or deceit, then the Constitutional Court is required to declare such order as non-executable. The court also held that concealment or omission to disclose irrelevant facts does not necessarily lead to the dismissal of a meritorious petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and declared that the resolution passed by the petitioner-Trust allotting plots to the respondent-Society was null and void. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to conclude the investigation into the fraud within a period of 3 months.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. In the considered opinion of this Court, the questions which needs adjudication are
B. Whether concealment/omission to disclose irrelevant facts must lead to the dismissal of a meritorious petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?
1. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others (2003) 8 SCC 311 that 'fraud' and 'justice' can never dwell together. In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the court went on to lay down that the judgment and decree passed on the basis of fraud is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. In Union of India and others vs. Ramesh Gandhi, (2012) 1 SCC 476, it was held that even a court of subordinate jurisdiction is permitted to enter into the question as to whether the judgment of a superior Court was obtained by playing fraud on the later Court because such a judgment is nullity and is required to be treated as non est. With these broad outlines, this Bench now proceeds to examine the present case.
2.FACTS:-
2.1 It is necessary to note the facts in detail. The respondent-Society claims to be the owner of land measuring 16800 sq. yds. located at Village Dugri, District Ludhiana. The Government of Punjab has enacted the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act') for the improvement and expansion of towns in a planned manner in the State. Section 3 thereof provides that the duty to carry out the provisions of the Act in any local area shall vest in a Board to be called 'the (name of town) Improvement Trust'. Every such Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. In the exercise of the aforesaid powers, the petitioner-Ludhiana Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-Trust') was created. In order to carry out a planned development of approximately 400 acres of land located at Ludhiana, the petitioner-trust proposed a scheme. The requisite notifications under Section 36 and 42 of 'the 1922 Act' declaring its intention to acquire an approximate area of 400 acres of land for 'Model Town Extension Part-II' scheme were published. Out of the afore-said land, land measuring 16800 sq. yds. belongs to the respondent-Society. Similarly, individual pieces of land belonging to 5 other societies were also proposed to be acquired. The respondent-Society challenged the proposed compulsory acquisition before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5166 of 1975 which was withdrawn on 03.05.1976. The Government vide a notification dated 25.06.1981 decided to release the entire land, measuring 16800 Sq.yds., owned by the respondent-Society from compulsory acquisition, subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(b) that development charges will be paid by the Society to the Trust on the basis of rates fixed by the Trust and the development of the area exempted will be carried out by the Improvement Trust;
(c) that utilization in the area exempted in favour of the Co operative Society will be to the same extent as the land utilization in the overall scheme. For instance, the land left for roads, parks and other common purposes would be to the same extent as left in overall scheme. Consequently, the area under plots would be about 45 to 55% of the entire area exempted;
(d) that exemption will be in respect of bonafide Housing Societies and that its individual
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
