RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through these two petitions Nos. 3244 and 3245 of 1976 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two similar but different orders resuming the plots of the Petitioner in exercise of the powers vested in the Administrator under the provisions of the Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) are impugned. It is not in dispute that this provision of the Statute has already been struck down by this Court in Sh Dharampal and Ors. V/s. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1978 PunLJ 396. In this view of the matter the order or resumption is rendered Void and becomes unsustainable.

(2.) Mr. Sayal learned A.A.G. for the state Respondent, however points out that these petitions have been filed after a great delay of the passing of the impugned orders and on that basis alone these should be dismissed. FOR this proposition he seeks reliance on another decision of this Court in Ramji Dass V/s. The State of Punjab and Ors. C.W. No. 7170 of 1975, decided on 19th October, 1980 where similar orders of resumption were under challenge and the petition had been dismissed on the ground of laches. He also pleads that since the plots in question had been resold by the Respondent authorities and the Petitioner has not impleaded those vendees these petitions deserves to be dismissed on that score also. I do not find any merit in these submissions of the learned Counsel for the short reason that the impugned orders having been passed under a void law, would be non-est or non-existent in the eye of law. The Respondent authorities if could not resume the plots as they could not in view of the judgment of this Court referred to above, then they could not possibly pass a better title to the subsequent vendees. So far as the judgment in Ramji Dass's case is concerned, all this was said in the judgment was in the context where the vires of Section 13 of the Act where not in question.

(3.) In the light of the discussion above, allow these petitions and quash the impugned orders but pass no orders as to costs.