ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. 8770 of 1987 titled 'ashok Kumar v. The State of Punjab and Ors. ', and No. 1105 of 1989 titled 'ravinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. as common question of law and facts is involved in both these writ petitions.

(2.) WRIT petition No. 8770 of 1987 has been filed by Ashbk Kumar and others, against the State of Punjab. The Chairman, Improvement Trust, Nabha, the Land Acquisition Collector, Nabha Improvement Trust and the Municipal Committee, Nabha, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashment of scheme relating to Sarai Shadiat, Duladi Gate Nabha, sanctioned by the Govt. under Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922,'dated 31. 3. 86 and for setting aside the proceedings taken Under Sections 36, 38 and 40 (l) of the said Act and for setting aside the notice of the Land Acquisition Collector, Nabha dated 27. 10. 1987 and directions have also been sought by the petitioners against respondent No. 3 i. e. the Land Acquisition Collector, Nabha, not to dispossess them from their shops situated in Sarai Shadiat, Duladi Gate, Nabha.

(3.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The State of Punjab, respondent No. 1 filed written statement and denied the averments. Some preliminary objections, were taken and it was submitted that development scheme for the area known as Sarai Shadiat near Duladi Gate Nabha was framed by the Trust Nabha vide resolution No. 3 dated 15. 3. 1986. The petition suffers from vice of delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed. That the finality is attached to the scheme when notification regarding its having been sanctioned Under Section 41 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 is published in the official gazette Under Section 42 of the Act and it is conclusive evidence of the fact that scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned and as such the claim cannot be impugned on the grounds taken in the writ petition: It was also pleaded that the petitioners are fully guilty of wilful suppression of truth inasmuch as most of them have earlier filed civil suits wherein the Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Nabha came to the conclusion that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioners and the Municipal Committee, Nabha. The Civil Court declined to grant injunction prayed for by the Improvement Trust, Nabha. On merits, the stand of respondent No. 1 is that the building in question is 95 years old and it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation which the passage of time and it was on the verge of collapse when the scheme was framed. It was only in performance of its moral and civic duties that respondent No. 4 got the building declared as unsafe, dangerous and unfit for human habitation as the building was likely to collapse at any moment on account of normal wear and tear. It has also been submitted that the Trust framed the scheme with the sole purpose of developing the area and not to harass the petitioners. The provisions of Section 36 of the Act have been duly complied with. Notice regarding framing of scheme was published in Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 12. 4. 1985, 19. 4. 1985 and 26. 4. 1985 and also published in the Punjabi Tribune on 2. 4. 1985, 9. 4. 1985 and 16. 4. 1985. Due publicity of the scheme was also given in accordance with the law. Notice Under Section 38 of the proposed acquisition of land were issued to all the owners of land, immovable property and to the occupiers comprised in the scheme as also to all such occupants of the building who appeared as tenants in the registers maintained by respondent No. 4. Notices were also issued to petitioners No. 3 to 19, although they were not the tenants but sub-tenants of original tenants who had abandoned the premises. It was duly intimated that the objections could be filed within 60 days from the receipt of the notices. The provisions of Section 38 of the Town improvement Act were duly complied with. Only petitioner No. 1 filed objections before the Trust Under Section 36 of the Act. None of the other petitioners filed any objections in response to the notices Under Section 36. The objections were duly considered and objectors were called for personal hearing on 19. 7. 1985 but none of the petitioners appeared and objections were disposed of being devoid of merit and in resolution No. 22 dated 19. 7. 1985, the proceedings were briefly recorded and Trust resolved to submit the scheme to the Govt. for sanction. By their wilful absence on 19. 7. 85, the petitioners have waived their rights for personal hearing and now they are estopped from making unjustified grievances, at this inordinately belated stage. Provisions of Section 40 of the Act were also duly complied with. The scheme was sanctioned after due consideration and after certifying that all statutory requirements have been complied with. The Trust did not prevail upon the State Govt. for the sanction of the scheme. After denying other material averments of the writ petition, this respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.