KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions have been filed against the notice dated 21. 6. 1976 issued by the Chairman Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, for framing a Development-cum-Housing Accommodation Scheme in an area measuring 475 acres lying on the right side of Pakhowal Road beyond Sidhwan canal at Ludhiana. The petitioner has also challenged the notification dated 28. 6. 1979 issued by the Government of Punjab Under Section 41 (1) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1922 ). In all the petitions prayers have been made to quash the impugned notice and the notification and to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner.

(2.) A brief statement of facts of the three writ petition would enable us to properly appreciate the various points raised in the writ petitions. In Civil Writ Petition No. 4041 of 1986 petitioner Karnail Singh son of Dharam Singh has pleaded that he is in possession of land measuring 110-Kanals, 18 marlas situated in village Sunet Hadbast No. 159, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and he has been cultivating the land for the last 15 years for earning his livelihood. According to the petitioner the Ludhiana Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-trust)passed a resolution in its meeting held on 24. 3. 1936 framing a Development-cum-Housing Accommodation Scheme on the right side of Pakhowal Road beyond Sindhwan canal under Sections 24 and 28 (2) of the Act of 1922 for an area measuring 475 acres, including the land belonging to the petitioner. Notice dated 21. 6. 1976 issued under Section 36 of the Act of 1922 was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 2. 7. 1976. Earlier to this a Development-cum-Housing Accommodation Scheme had been framed on 29. 6. 1972 in respect of an area comprising 827 acres. This scheme was quashed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5256 of 1975 (The Ludhiana Lok Hitkari Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Ludhiana v. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Ors.), decided on 26. 2. 1976. The petitioner says that although Section 38 of the Act of 1922 makes it imperative for the respondent-trust to serve notice on every person who is found to be owner of the immovable property or occupier thereof and such notice has to be issued within a period of thirty days next following the first day on which any notice has been published under Section 36 of the Act indicating its proposal to acquire the property and at the same time calling upon such person to file objection within sixty days but no such notice was served upon the petitioner after publishing of notice Annexure P-l. Further allegation of the petitioner is that no notice as required under Section 40 (3) was published by the respondent-trust and thus the petitioner was prevented from filing of the representation to the State Government against the sanctioning of the Scheme, and, therefore, the Scheme sanctioned by the Government is vitiated. Another objection raised by the petitioner is that although the Scheme was framed way back in the year 1976 compensation has not been paid to him by the respondent No. 2 and he continues to occupy the property which shows that the respondent No. 2 did not really require the land for the purpose of the development and housing scheme. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Government letter dated 28. 12. 1979 purporting to reduce the period within which the notification is required to be issued under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Petitioner says that the notification issued by the Government on 28. 6. 1979 should be deemed to have lapsed due to failure of the respondent-trust to take possession of the property. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on an order dated 20. 11. 1984 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3056 of 1982 (Sunder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab ).

(3.) CIVIL Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986 has also been filed by Karnail Singh son of Dharam Singh with the allegations that he owns and is in possession of the land measuring 1-Kanal 1-marla comprised in Khewat No. 205, Khatoni No. 257, Khasra No. 5/19 situated in village Phullanwali, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. On this land, he has constructed sixteen shops which open on Pakhowal Road. His livelihood depends on the income received from these shops. The averments made in the writ petition are similar to the averments made in Civil Writ Petition No. 4041 of 1986 and, therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same. In reply, respondent No. 2 has also reiterated its stand that the notice/notifications have been published in accordance with law. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner was dispossessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana, on 23. 11. 1981 but thereafter he unauthorisedly occupied the land and made construction over the same. When such lawful construction came to the notice of the Trust, action was initiated for demolition thereof. In his replication, the petitioner has reiterated his claim for asserting that the construction of the shops was made by him in accordance with law and not after his alleged dispossession. The petitioner has reiterated his claim that he still continues to be in possession of the disputed land.