KARTAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of seven Writ Petitions Nos 2262, 2167, 2211 and 2215 to 2218 of 1976, as identical question of law and fact have bee raised in these all. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in Civil Writ No. 2262 of 1976, would govern the merit of the other cases and in this view of the matter I propose to make a reference, whenever necessary, to the facts and records of this case only.

(2.) The improvement Trust, Ludhiana, (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) framed a development scheme under Section 24 read with Section 28(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), regarding 17 acres of land near the Jawahar Camp and in this regard published a notice under S. 36 of t he Act on November 1, 1963. Later this scheme was sanctioned by the Government in terms of Section 41 of the Act and was duly notified on January 28, 1968. as required by Section 42 of the Act. Instead of implementing this scheme as sanctioned, the Trust, as per the allegation of the petitioner modified it and converted it into a housing scheme without complying with the procedure necessitated by such an alteration or change in the scheme Some of the landowners, namely. Kartar Singh and others, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2725 of 1971, in this Court challenging the conversion of the scheme from 'development scheme' to 'housing scheme' and the said petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this court on April 27, 1973. Though there is a little controversy between the parties with regard to the exact effect of this judgment, yet that being not material for the purpose of the present controversy, I need not make a detailed reference to the contents of the said judgments. As a sequel to this pronouncement, the Trust passed are solution No. 30 dated May 23, 1973. Annexure P. 1 resolving to abandon the scheme altogether. Since the whole controversy revolves around the interpretation and effect of this resolution, it is but proper to reproduce the same in extenso:-

(3.) At a later stage, as a result of some correspondence between the Government and the Trust, the State Government advised the Trust with reference to the above noted resolution f the Trust, vide Annexure R-1 to the written statement that while the order of the High Court in the above noted writ petition may be complied with, but the scheme as a whole may not be abandoned as it did not appear necessary. As per the return of the Trust it felt bound by the above noted advice of the Government and thus on a reconsideration of the entire matter superseded its resolution Annexure P. 1 ad decided to proceed with the implementation of the scheme as originally sanctioned by the Government on Jan 28, 1968. This led to the issuance of the impugned notice Annexure P.3 to the petitioner asking her to surrender the possession of the land with her.