The court declared the provisions of Section 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 ultra vires but applied the ruling prospectively to maintain public order.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since both the writ petition(s) relate to common questions of law, and also with the facts thereins being identical, therefore, the same are being disposed of through a common order.

2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner(s) claim the making of a lapsing declaration in respect of the subject lands.

3. For understanding the import of the above claim, it is but necessary to extract the provisions incorporated in Section 192 (1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Punjab Act of 1911') as thereons the above claim becomes rested. The said provisions are extracted hereinafter.

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 planning scheme for unbuilt areas, which may among other things provide for the following matters, namely :-

(a) the restriction of the erection or re-erection of buildings or any class of buildings in the whole or any part of the 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 owners of land either on payment of compensation or otherwise, provided that the total amount so transferred shall not exceed [thirty five per cent,] and the amount transferred without payment shall not exceed [twenty five per cent], of any one owner's land within [such unbuilt area.]

(2) xxxx

(3) xxxx

(4) xxxx

(5) xxxx

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled as Yogendra Pal v. Municipality, Bathinda: 1994 AIR (SC) 2550, to which Civil Appeal No. 818 of 1986 became assigned, proceeded to in paragraph No. 30 thereof, declare the said provisions to be ultra vires the Constitution of India. Para 30 of the verdict becomes extracted hereinafter.

30. As held above, the provisions of Section 192(1)(c)of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and of Section 203(1)(c)of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence the acquisitions of the appellants' land under the respective provisions were bad in law. The question still remains as to what relief the appellants can be granted. It is now well-settled by the decisions of this Court beginning with I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. that the Court can mould the relief to meet the exigencies of the circumstances and also make the law down by it prospective in operation. We are informed that till date the Municipal Committees in both Punjab and Haryana States have similarly acquired lands for their respective town planning schemes and in many cases the schemes have also been completed. It is only some of the land-owners who had approached the courts and the decisions of the courts have become final in many of those cases. It would not, therefore, be in the public interest to unsettle the settled state of affairs. It would create total chaos and an unmanageable situation for the Municipal Committees if the said provisions of the respective statutes and the land acquisitions made thereunder are declared void with retrospective effect. We, therefore, propose to declare that the concerned provisions of the two enactments would be void from the date of this decision.

5. Though, a reading of the above extracted paragraph, but unfolds, that the declarings thereins, thus as ultra vires rather the above provisions being prospective and not retrospective.

6. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) yet rested his writ claim (supra), through his making the hereinafter contentions.

7. That assuming that the declaration (supra), as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in verdict (supra) is to hold prospective and not retrospective effect, but yet when the p