BHAGWANT SINGH CHHIKARA Vs. ROHTAK IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Governor of Haryana sanctioned on 16th April, 1974, Development Scheme No. 6, prepared by the Rohtak Improvement Trust, Rohtak (briefly the Trust), under section 24 read with section 28(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short the Act) for an area, approximately measuring 60,000 square metres, within the boundaries of Municipal Committee, Rohtak, and a notification under section 42(1) of the Act was published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated 30th April 1974. The land of Bhagwant Singh Chhikara and Balwant Singh Chhikara was included in this scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak announced the award and took possession of the petitioners' land on 30th May, 1974. Compensation was paid to the landowners, including the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. The petitioners' grievance is that the scheme had not been implemented till 19th August, 1984 when the writ petition was filed. They contend that under section 44-A of the Act, the scheme published under section 42 of the Act is to be executed by the Trust within a period of 5 years from the date of its notification. The State Government has, however, been empowered to extend the time for execution of such a scheme if it is satisfied that it was beyond that control of the Trust to execute the same within 5 years of its publication. They urge that the scheme had not been implemented and the State Government had not granted any extension. So the proceedings taken by the authorities had been vitiated. The petitioners were, thus, constrained to file the present writ petition.

(2.) In reply it has been admitted by the respondents that the scheme had been sanctioned on April 16, 1974 and the same had been published in the Government Gazette dated 30th April, 1974. It was asserted that the land in dispute and the other land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid scheme, had been acquired, compensation therefor had been paid to the owners. It was averred that the whole of the scheme was fully developed and implemented and that the entire land which was acquired under the scheme had been sold to the Rohtak University, now Maharishi Dayanand University through its Vice-Chancellor vide agreement to sell dated 21st October, 1976. It was further stated that the Trust had spent Rs. 1,16,000/- on the development and implementation of the scheme. The depressions in the land had been filled. The roads had been constructed. Under these circumstances, it was stated that the scheme should be deemed to have been implemented. Shri Sri Krishan respondent No. 3 had filed a separate written statement controverting the allegations of mala fide and other averments of facts.

(3.) Bhagwant Singh Chhikara filed an affidavit dated 23rd November, 1984 wherein it was clearly averred that no construction had been raised on the petitioners' land. No road had been constructed on the acquired land. There were no depressions in this land at the time of acquisition. Shri H.L. Gupta, Assistant Engineer of the Trust, put in an affidavit in reply to the affidavit of Shri Bhagwant Singh Chhikara, petitioner. He deposed therein that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been spent on the development of the land. A sum of Rs. 32,000/- was spent on account of the filling work for raids alone. In addition, the levelling was done, as there were deep depressions, as well as moulds, on the land in dispute. He, however, did not reiterate the assertion in the written statement that roads had been constructed on the land in dispute. All that he said was that a sum of Rs. 32,000/- was spent on earth- filling work for roads. The averments of the petitioners are categoric that the scheme had not been implemented till the time of the filing of the writ petition in 1984 though the same had been published in the year 1974. No extension under section 44-A of the Act had been granted by the State Government. No roads had been constructed. There were no depressions in the land in dispute and the Trust had not spent anything on levelling the same. The case of the respondents is that the scheme had been sanctioned and published in 1974. Money had been spent on levelling the land. Previously it had been stated that the roads had been constructed, but then the stand was shifted and it was averred that only earth-filling work for the roads worth Rs. 32,000/- had been done. The Trust had entered into an agreement with Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak to sell the land in dispute. This agreement was executed in 1976 and the land is going to be transferred to the University shortly. It is clear from the above facts that the scheme, though published in 1974, has not been completed. The Trust, on its own showing, did nothing more than levelling certain depressions and doing some earth-filling work. Even the roads had not been completed. The land has not been transferred. It still continues to be the property of the Trust. The agreement to sell, though said to have been entered into in 1976 has not fructified into a complete sale even pending this writ petition. The scheme has not been completely executed within a period of 5 years, as envisaged by section 44-A of the Act. The State Government has not granted any extension. Mere levelling a part of the land or doing the earth filling work for the roads cannot constitute the execution of the scheme. A Full Bench of this Court had recently an occasion to examine the import of the expression "executed'' as used in section 44-A of the Act, in Nawal Singh v. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri & others, 1983 PunLJ 566. It has been observed :