BHATINDA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Counsel heard.

(2.) The appellant, Bhatinda Improvement Trust, framed a development scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as "the said Act"). Notices under S. 36 of the said Act in respect of the said scheme, setting out the particulars referred to in the said Section, were published in the Daily Tribune on May 31, 1977, June 7, 1977 and June 14, 1977. The said notices were also published in the local daily Ajit on May 30, 1977, June 6, 1977 and June 13, 1977 and in Punjab Government Gazette on June 17, 19771 June 24, 1977 and July 1977, respectively. A Notification as required under S. 42 of the said Act was published on June 30, 1980 sanctioning the said development scheme. The said Notices and Notifications were challenged by the respondents in Civil Writ No. 2508 of 1982 filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, inter alia, on the ground that the Notification under Section 42 was not issued within the stipulated period of three years from the first publication of the Notice under Section 36 and on that account it was bad in law. This contention found favour with the learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court who allowed the writ petition and set aside the Notification under Section 42 which was issued on June 30, 1980. A Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said Judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court and the present petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, dismissing the said Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) It was submitted by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant that the time limit of three years for the issue of the Notification under S. 42 of the said Act was not prescribed under the said Act and that the first proviso to S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable to the scheme in question. It was submitted by him that the provisions of S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were, in effect, incorporated into the said Act which was enacted in 1922 from the very time of its enactment and hence, any amendment the said section after that date would not be applicable to acquisitions under the said Act. It was pointed out by him that the aforesaid time limit of three years was inserted in the Land Acquisition Act in 1984, long after the said Act was enacted as set out particularly hereinafter and hence, it could not have any application to the acquisitions made for the purposes of the said Act.