JODH SINGH Vs. JULLUNDUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is before us on a reference made by one of us (Sodhi, J.) raising a significant question of law as to whether issuance of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would bar a challenge to the validity of the scheme or the governmental sanction thereto far any reason including the reason that the scheme had been framed and sanctioned without compliance of the mandatory provisions, particularly those of Sections 36, 38 and sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Act.

(2.) THOUGH in view of the prestinely legalistic nature of the question posed, it would hardly be necessary to bring within the focus the facts of this case, yet we fee1 that the rea1 import of the legal question can only be viewed in correct perspective against the background of the facts. Hence these few facts: The Trust prepared a street scheme the validity whereof is under attack relating to an area measuring approximately 2. 5 acres for the Bastian Road near Adda Guzan, Jullundur. Land measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas belonging to the petitioners on which 8 shops have been constructed by them has been included in the said scheme. Originally, a street scheme in respect of that very land had been prepared by the Trust in 1969, which, however, was dropped in 1971. The petitioners thereafter sought permission to construct 8 shops on their said land and in that regard submitted their plan of construction to the Municipal Committee, Jullundur on 3rd May, 1972. Their application was forwarded by the Municipal Committee to the Trust, the Chairman whereof returned the papers to the Municipal Committee on 25th May, 1972 with the remarks, "returned. Since the site does not fall in any of the Trust Schemes, the plan may be dealt with in accordance with the bye-laws. " On receipt on the said report the Municipal Committee vide its resolution dated 3lst January, 1973, granted permission to the petitioners to construct 8 shops in question and thereafter petitioners constructed those shops.

(3.) THE respondent-Trust on 11th Mar. , 1974 adopted policy resolution for the framing of the street scheme in question and issued notice under Section 36 of the Act on 20th March, 1974. In that notice reference was to the map prepared in 1968 for the scheme framed in 1969. That map obviously did not reflect any changes that had taken place during the intervening period from 1968 to 1974.