VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the admitted facts are as follows: The respondent Trust framed a scheme under section 3 of the Punjab Development and Damaged Areas Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) and published the same on November 10, 1962, in accordance with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioners now impugn this scheme primarily on the ground that the respondent Trust has failed to implement the same till today whereas under the law (section 12(2) of the Act) it could be implemented within a period of three years only. In support of this stand of theirs, they squarely rely upon Kishan Chand v. The Jullundur Improvement Trust, 1970 1 ILR(P&H) 645 and Ugar Sain v. State of Punjab etc., 1978 80 PunLR 116.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this petition must succeed. Section 12(2) makes it incumbent on the Trust to inform the Government besides other matters about the actual cost of the scheme within a period of three years from the date of sanction of the scheme. In other words, in the instant case, this information had to be supplied by the Trust to the Government by November 10, 1965. The necessary implication of this provision of the Act is that the Trust is under an obligation to complete or implement the same within a period of three years from the date of publication of the same as it is only then that it is in a position to let the Government know about the actual cost of implementation of scheme. For this view of mine I seek support from the two above noted judgments of this Court. Mr. Mattewal, learned counsel for the Trust, however, contends, that the petitioners deserve to be non-suited on the ground of delay in coming to this Court. For this contention of his he places reliance on certain observations of the Supreme Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1974 AIR(SC) 2077. However, I find that the observations made in that case do not apply to the facts of this case. Here the petitioners are not challenging the validity of the scheme for any non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Their case is that three years having elapsed from the date of the sanction of the scheme, the Trust cannot possibly now implement the same under the Act. As already indicated, I accept this stand of the petitioners.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above this petition succeeds and the impugned scheme, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed. They are also held entitled to the costs of the litigation which I determine at Rs. 300/-