HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application for ad-interim injunction.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed stating that they being owners in possession of the suit land as the successors of one Jawala Singh could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The stand of the respondent-Trust was that after Notification dated April 6, 1976, issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter, called as 'the Act'), no objections have been filed by Jawala Singh himself, although he was alive at that time, and that the petitioners who were only the heirs of Jawala Singh had no locus standi to claim any relief from the Court. This stand was negatived by the Courts below and it was held that the petitioners had become the owners of the property in question by virtue of a decree dated December 15, 1972 and not by succession after the death of Jawala Singh on May 8, 1976. On merits, however, the Courts found that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit land as they had been dispossessed way back on April 5, 1980 and having accepted a substantial amount of compensation with respect to the disputed land, they were not entitled to maintain the present suit. It was also held that on the notice issued to Jawala Singh the petitioner had stated that they wanted Rs. 2,000/- per marla as compensation and as such had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) MR. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made a two fold argument ; firstly, that a notice under Section 38 of the Act which was imperative in terms was required to be served on the petitioners as owners of the land and in possession thereof was not issued and secondly, that the possession of the disputed land not having been taken within one year from the date of notification, the entire acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed. For the first proposition, reliance has been placed on Prof. Jodh Singh v. Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur, (1985-2) 88 P. L. R. 308. (F. B.) and for the second on Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 575. .