LAWS(P&H)-1981-1-44

BAKSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 20, 1981
BAKSHI RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Improvement Trust, Yamunanagar had framed a scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) which was approved by the State Government and was notified on 28th of March, 1972 under Section 42 of the Act. The scheme was known as scheme No. 9 under Sections 24 and 28(2) of the Act in respect of 4.67 acres of land situate in the town of Yamuna Nagar. Since the scheme was not executed within the period of five years and possession was sought to be taken from the Petitioners, they filed the present writ petition on 11th of May, 1977 in this Court to impugn the action of the Respondents to take possession from them or to implement the scheme as the same had elapsed in view of Section 44-A of the Act. After notice, written statement has been filed by the State as also by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust. In the written statement, it is admitted that the scheme could not be implemented as the Petitioners had challenged the validity of the scheme. As regards possession, it was stated that it remained with the mortgagees of the Petitioners and therefore the Respondents could implement the scheme only after taking possession. It was also averred that the Improvement Trust was now taking active steps to implement the scheme.

(2.) Shri A.S. Nehra, counsel appearing for the Improvement Trust has fairly conceded that the matter is covered in favour of the petitions in View of two Division Bench judgments of this Court Surat Ram and Ors. V/s. The State of Haryana and Ors.,1979 PunLJ 430 and Brij Lal and Ors. V/s. Sirsa Improvement Trust and Ors., 1980 PunLJ 436. However, Mr. Bhoop Singh, Additional Advocate general, appearing for the State as opposed the writ petition.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. The argument of the Additional Advocate General is that the award was given on 18th of March, 1977 which was within five years of the publication of the notification under Section 42 of the Act and therefore, it should be deemed that the land vested in the State Government/Improvement Trust free from any encumbrance and thereafter the Improvement Trust was at liberty to execute the scheme without the impediment of any time limit. Assuming the argument to be of some merit, a look at Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shows that the acquired land vests in the State Government after the award is announced under Section 11 of the Act and possession of the land is taken thereafter. In the present case, it is admitted that the State Government Improvement Trust did not take possession of the land after the award was announced and even on the date of filing of the written statement in July, 1977, the possession was of the mortgagees of the Petitioners which is clear from the reading of paragraph 6 of the preliminary objections and para 16 on merits of the written statement of the Improvement Trust. Therefore, it cannot be held that the State Government/Improvement Trust became owner of the acquired property or that the same vests in them.