NAURATA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') published a notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act') dated March 6, 1961, in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated March 17, 1961, in respect of expansion scheme prepared by the Trust under Section 24 read with Section 28 of the Act for an area measuring approximately 216 acres situated in village Rajpura, tehsil and district Ludhiana. Subsequently, it passed a resolution, dated May 15, 1971, for renotifying a development scheme in respect of land measuring 15 acres in that village. This area had previously been notified for acquisition and was subsequently denotified. Subsequently, it amended the above resolution, dated May 15, 1971, by resolution No. 26 dated July 25, 1972, and increased the area in the development scheme from 15 acres to 100 acres. This scheme was named as "100 acres development scheme on Rajpura Road". A notice under Section 36, dated July 27, 1972 in respect of the aforesaid development scheme was published in the newspaper, dated August 1, 1972. The petitioners filed objections under Section 38(2) of the Act against the said scheme on October 3, 1972. The Trust sent an application under Section 40(2) of the Act to the State of Punjab for sanctioning of the scheme. The State Government issued notification, dated September 18, 1973, under Section 41(1) of the Act and sanctioned the aforesaid development scheme. The land of the petitioners also forms part of the said scheme. A notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was served on the petitioners on February 5, 1974. The petitioners have challenged the notice, dated July 27, 1972, and notification, dated September 18, 1972. The writ petition has been contested by respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trust made an application to the State Government for sanctioning acquisition part of the scheme. The State Government under Section 41(1) of the Act also sanctioned only that part of the scheme by which the land was to be acquisitioned. The learned counsel submits that unless the scheme as a whole was sanctioned, the land of the petitioners could not be acquired by the Trust.

(3.) I have heard the parties at considerable length. Mr. Shiv Singh, Chairman of respondent No. 2, while forwarding the papers under Section 40(1) of the Act, in his letter, dated January 10, 1973 (Annexure GG/1) had stated as follows :-