GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the question of law that arises for determination is as to whether, by reason of coming into operation of land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short 'the Amendment Act) with effect from September 24, 1984, proviso to Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short 'the Punjab Act') added vide PA 13 of 1982 has become void and thereafter no declaration and notification Under Section 42 of the Punjab Act could be issued after the expiry of one year from the date of a first publication of notice relating to the scheme Under Section 36 of the Punjab Act and also that as to whether by reason of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the said impugned proviso to Section 42 of the Punjab Act being repugnant and inconsistent with the amendment Act has become void since the coming into operation of the Amendment Act.

(2.) IN order to sort out controversy, brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be noticed. The petitioners are in possession of certain shops in Grain Market, Malerkotla, as tenants. They have impugned the scheme known as "bans Bazar Commercial Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheme') framed by the Improvement Trust Malerkotla District Sangrur. The shops are situated on the Nallah. These are being acquired for the purpose of development of commercial area. The scheme has been impugned for the reasons that in the notice Annexures P-l and P-2 dated February 10, 1988 and February 18, 1988 respectively which are purported to have been issued Under Section 36 of the Punjab Act, the only mention is that decision has been taken to frame a commercial Scheme known as 'bans Bazar Scheme' which would include an area of two Kanals. The mandatory provisions of Section 36 which require that such a notice should be prepared and published after the Scheme has been framed have not been complied with. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have mentioned in the notices that the Scheme had been framed comprising the boundaries of the locality and the place at which details of the Scheme including a statement of land proposed to be acquired and a general map of the locality comprised in the scheme could be inspected. The petitioners were only intimated that a decision had been taken by respondent No. to frame the scheme. In the notices copies of which are Annexures P-1 and P-2, there is no mention that the scheme had been framed. As such this cannot be treated as notices Under Section 36 of the Act. It has been urged that no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioners for filing objections. As such, the scheme deserves to be quashed.

(3.) IN rebuttal, the learned counsel for the improvement Trust and the State have refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.