SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pertinent question that needs determination in the present writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the petitioners, whose land was acquired, for execution of a scheme under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and who have not only received compensation of such land but even on reference, also received enhanced compensation, can challenge the acquisition proceedings, primarily on the ground that land is not to be put to the use for which it was acquired by changing the scheme for some other purpose.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the question aforesaid, facts of the case need a necessary mention. The pleaded case of petitioners is that Pritam Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, was allotted land measuring 4 Bighas 17 Biswas in village Nur Bhaini, District Ludhiana, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 on February 27, 1959. The respondent-Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, framed a development scheme known as Model Town Extension Part-I Scheme under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on September 16, 1960. Meanwhile, the land, allotted to the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated March 29, 1962 because of some dispute pertaining to classification of land being urban or sub-urban and the land reverted to the Central Government. The scheme was, however, sanctioned by the Government as declaration under Section 42 of the Act, which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, followed on May 7, 1964. The Collector made award on March 31, 1965, wherein land allotted to Pritam Singh was also included, even though land of those, who were similarly situated, had since been exempted. Meanwhile, vide orders dated February 12, 1981, allotment of land made to Pritam Singh was restored in favour of the petitioners in an appeal that was filed against order dated March 29, 1962. The petitioners, however, remained in possession throughout. In 1984, the respondent-Trust issued notice under Section 9 of the Act to the occupants and invited claims. Some of the occupants, however, filed writ petitions in this Court which were allowed on July 25, 1984 and notifications, Annexures P-3 and P-4, issued under Sections 36 and 42 of the Act were quashed. Petitioners, being displaced persons, as pleaded in the writ petition, were allotted two plot Nos. 173 and 174 and they even deposited full price of Rs. 31000/- but the Trust did not earmark the plots nor delivered possession of the same. Meanwhile, the petitioners had received compensation of Rs. 43140/- as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, even prior to 1970. On August 30, 1994, petitioners made representation to the respondent-Trust for exemption of their land because it was not abutting any road and remained unutilised by the Trust. It is the case of petitioners that a conscious decision was taken and consequently, resolution bearing No. 280, dated August 30, 1994 was passed to exempt the land of the petitioners. The case was referred to the State Government for sanctioning the exemption. Later on, without notice to the petitioners, the Trust withdrew the resolution by passing another resolution dated July 23, 1996. Constrained, the petitioners moved yet another representation for exemption of their land on May 9, 2000 to the Trust and other higher authorities. However, the petitioners came to know that various authorities, like Director, Local Government and Joint Secretary, Local Government had recommended the exemption of land of petitioner on their representation. It is the case of petitioners that respondent-trust passed some resolution for alteration of lay-out plan by reviving the scheme of 1960 on July 9, 1998 and the Government accorded the sanction vide notification dated April 29, 1999. They further learnt that the respondent-Trust had decided to construct M1G/LIG flats by changing the original scheme and re-naming the same as Model Town Extension Part-II. A copy of the advertisement for inviting the applications published by the respondent-trust on August 15, 2002 has been placed on record as Annexure P-10.

(3.) It is so pleaded and argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of change in the scheme from the original to Model Town Extension-II, Notifications, Annexures P-3 and P-4 and award, Annexure P-5, have necessarily to be set aside as the scheme envisaged under the notifications aforesaid and the award had elapsed and had been abandoned qua the land of petitioners.