P N MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two connected Civil Writ Nos. 2038 and 2628 of 1968 will stand disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) There is in force in the State of Punjab, the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 , hereinafter called the Act, object whereof is mainly the preparation of schemes for the improvement and expansion of towns in the State. The duty of carrying out the provisions of the Act in any local area vests in a Board called the Town Improvement Trust, hereinafter referred to as the Trust.

(3.) For the town of Jullundur a Trust was created and it framed a street scheme for an area measuring approximately 4.8 Kanals on the Railway Road somewhere in the year 1956. The Chairman first made a proposal for widening a strip of the Railway Road and this proposal was accepted by the Trust in its meeting held on 22nd February, 1956. A copy of the resolution of the Trust to this effect is appended as annexure 'B' to the writ petition. In compliance with Section 36 of the Act, notices were issued by the Trust and the same published in the official Gazette as well as in newspapers inviting objections to the proposed scheme. Details of the scheme were stated in the notice which gave a statement of the land as well proposed to be acquired for the scheme. It is unfortunate that objections which were forwarded to the State Government in the same year were not disposed of by the latter in almost five years and it allowed the scheme intended for the benefit of the public to remain in abeyance by its own lethargy or for reasons best known to it. The colossal delay indeed reflects the apathy of the Government to public welfare. Be that as it may in November, 1961, final notification approving the scheme was ultimately issued under Section 42(1) of the Act. Since the acquisition of land was involved and procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Section 59 of the Act, had to be followed, the award for payment of compensation was made on 27th September, 1962. It is not disputed that objections under Section 36 of the Act had been preferred by the petitioners who claimed to be tenants on the premises sought to be acquired for the scheme. The landowners then requested the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to make a reference to the Court and the matter was finally settled by the Tribunal in regard to compensation on 6th January, 1965. We have the supplementary affidavit of the Chairman of the Trust and it appears that none of the petitioners demanded any compensation. They, however, seem to have approached the Government and got some sort of stay order. It was only for the first time in the year 1968 that the Trust seriously and actively thought of implementing the scheme framed in the year 1956. When possession was sought to be taken, the petitioners, in order to avoid dispossession, came to this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.