BRIJ LAL Vs. SIRSA IMPROVEMENT TRUST SIRSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13, 836 and 914 of 1979. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the questions of law and facts in all these petitions are common.

(2.) Improvement Trust, Sirsa, framed a Commercial Development Scheme which was sanctioned by the State Government vide notification dated 26th August, 1971. Copy of this notification is Annexure P.2 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13 of 1979. The Scheme in question could not be fully executed within a period of five years as postulated under Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be called the 'Act') as applicable to the State of Haryana. On 22nd May, 1978 the State Government issued a notification extending the period for executing the Scheme by one year. Subsequently, on 12th April, 1979, the State Government issued another notification, copy of which is attached as Annexure P.7 with Civil Writ Petition No. 13 of 1979, providing therein that the period of execution of the Scheme shall stand extended retrospectively with effect from 26th August, 1976 to 21st May, 1981. It may be mentioned that this notification rescinded the earlier notification dated 22nd May, 1978, copy of which is annexure P.6. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the notification issued by the Government, copy of which is Annexure P.7, on the ground that there is no power with the State Government to extend the period for execution of the Scheme retrospectively and, thus, the part of the Scheme which had not been executed within the period of five years, could not be executed subsequently. A Bench of this Court in Surat Ram and others v. The State of Haryana and others,1979 PunLJ 430, held that the power of the State Government under proviso to Section 44-A of the Act could be exercised before the expiry of period of five years as postulated under Section 44-A, and after the period of five years has passed, the period for execution of the scheme could not be extended retrospectively. The Civil Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1979 (Rajeshwar Parshad v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 24th May, 1979, another Bench of this Court took the same view and held that an order of the State Government passed after the expiry of five years of the enforcement of the Scheme could not be sustained.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents-Trust tried to persuade us to hold that the view taken by the Division Benches in Surat Ram and others' case and in Rajeshwar Parshad's case , is not the correct view of law. It has been contended by Mr. Mohunta, the learned counsel for the Trust, that the provisions of Section 44-A of the Act are not mandatory, but are directory in nature. It has been contended that even if the Scheme is not executed within a period of five years from the date of the notification under Section 42 of the Act, it could still be executed and that the period for executing the Scheme could be extended retrospectively. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. It is well settled that until and unless the Legislature has expressly conferred power on the delegatee to exercise the power with retrospective effect, the delegatee cannot exercise any such power retrospectively. The provisions of Section 44-A of the Act are as follows :-