SHAM SINGH HARIKAY Vs. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sham Singh who claims himself to be the owner of land measuring 118 Kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 19/11, 19/12, 19/13, 19/14, 19/15, 19/16, 19/17, 19/18, 19/19, 19/20, 19/21, 19/22, 19/23, 19/24 , and 19/25, situate in village Haibowal Khurd, tehsil and district Ludhiana seeks the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings and the award passed by the Collector with regard to said land constituting a part of 256 Acres of land acquired by the respondents for a development scheme vide notification dated 24.11.1978.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the land was acquired by the Government by notification issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act which is at par with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and as the same was issued by respondent No. 1 without prior approval of the State Land Acquisition Board, all the proceedings with regard to the acquisition are illegal and the petitioner is entitled to get back his land.

(3.) AT the out -set we may refer to the judgment dated 9.2.1994 (Annexure R -1) of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 8.4.1985 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, dismissing the suit of the petitioner in which the petitioner bad claimed that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute. The learned Sub Judge as well as learned Additional District Judge recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has no right over the property in dispute. Both the Courts further held that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit land in his own right when the scheme was notified or the land was acquired. The Courts further held that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the suit land and not as a tenant and he had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The Appellant Court further held that the trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the petitioner was estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit. The learned Appellate Court observed : -