LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 186 and 187 of 1983, as the judgment out of which they have arisen is common in both of them. These appeals have been filed by the defendant-appellant against whom the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Hans Raj and Banarsi Dass sons of Sunder Dass filed the suit giving rise to Regular Second Appeal No. 186 of 1983 whereas Ranjit Singh filed the suit giving rise to Regular Second Appeal No. 187 of 1983. Both the suits were filed for seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of their shops either through its officers or employees or through police or through any other means. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court vide order dated July 27, 1976. The acquisition made by the appellant was mainly challenged on the ground that the suit property was evacuee property belonging to the Central Government and, therefore, the same could not be acquired on behalf of the State under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, (hereinafter called the Act). Allegations were also made that the acquisition of the property was ultra vires and mala fide. However, no particulars in regard to the want of notice etc. were given in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by the trial Court. However, the main issue was issue No. 2, which was to the effect : whether the acquisition of the property, in dispute, by defendant No. 2 is ultra vires and mala vide ? Thereunder the trial Court found that the acquisition of the property, in dispute, was illegal. In order to come to this conclusion the judgment rendered by Shri Tara Singh, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, in Suit No. 8 of 1971 (M/s Guru Ram Dass Bakery v. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust), on October 19, 1976, was relied upon. In the said suit, the very notification under challenge in this suit, was declared to be illegal since the property was earlier owned by the Central Government. In the said suit, the learned trial Court relied upon the judgment of this court in Hari Chand v. State of Punjab, 1972 AIR(P&H) 25. It also found that no notice was issued to the occupants of the suit land and, therefore, the acquisition was illegal on that ground also. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suits were decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decrees passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by Shri Tara Singh, Subordinate Judge First Class, Ludhiana, in the suit filed on behalf of M/s Guru Ram Dass Bakery (suit No. 8 of 1971), has not found favour with the Division Bench of this Court in Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur v. Northern Carriers Private Ltd., 1982 PunLJ 505, and that in view of the said judgment of the Division Bench, these appeals are liable to be allowed. On the question of want of notice, the learned counsel contended that earlier both the plaintiffs and others had jointly filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3515 of 1971 (Gurbux Singh v. The State of Punjab), decided on February 14, 1975, challenging the very notification and also for issuing the appropriate writ, direction or order to the appellant to frame a re-housing scheme in accordance with the provisions of sections 26 and 27 of the Act. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court vide order dated February 14, 1975. In paragraph 2 of the said writ petition, the petitioners (now the plaintiffs) inter alia admitted.