NASIB KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present judgment, we dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP No.14962 of 1993, CWP No.3063 of 1994, CWP No.2310 of 1995 as well as two contempt petitions bearing COCP No.152 of 2002 and COCP No.1355 of 2008. In the above referred three writ petitions, there are similar issues of fact and law involved, therefore, the same are being disposed of through the present common judgment. So far as the two contempt petitions are concerned, they arise out of the alleged non compliance of interim orders passed in the above referred writ petitions and they were ordered to be heard alongwith these petitions, therefore, these contempt petitions have been heard along with the above referred writ petitions and are being decided together.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from CWP No.14962 of 1993; Nasib Kaur v. State of Punjab and others through which the petitioner challenges the award dated 20.4.1993 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Bathinda.

(3.) The grounds for challenging the award are that initial notification published under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking to acquire the land of the petitioner was for an area of 22.59 acres but in the final notification which was published under Section 42 of the Act, area of land sought to be acquired was for an increased area of land i.e. 25.57 acres. The petitioner states that for the additional land, there was no initial notification under Section 36 of the Act and therefore, qua that land no objections had been invited rendering the acquisition to be bad in law. The second ground of challenge as set out in the petition was that before execution of the development scheme for which the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired, no re-housing scheme as contemplated under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act had been prepared. According to the petitioner, preparation of a re-housing scheme was a pre-requisite without which no development scheme could be launched. Thus, if the development scheme was illegal as a necessary consequence, acquisition of land for such a scheme was also bad in law. The third and final ground raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the plots of the petitioner were required to be adjusted within the development scheme in terms of the judgment dated 6.8.2013 of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.6284 of 2013; Sham Lal and others v. State of Punjab and others.