(1.) This judgment will also dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 1223, 1175 of 1978 and R.S.A. No. 346 of 1979, as the question involved is common in all these cases.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed this suit on the averments that the defendant-Punjab State started reclamation of the land of the plaintiffs in the year 1954-55, in exercise of powers under the Pepsu Reclamation of Lands Act 2009-BK, illegally, without any right or authority and without any jurisdiction. According to the plaintiffs, the said reclamation work was started forcibly, without permission and without any notice to the plaintiffs. The mandatory provisions under Section 4 of the Pepsu Reclamation Act and also under the Punjab Reclamation Act are, that the State Government shall issue notification and declare the area reclaimable and that notification shall be published in the official gazette. According to the plaintiffs, no such notification was ever published and hence, all the proceedings were illegal. Moreover, no notices of reclamation, were issued to the land owners including the plaintiffs. Therefore, a declaration was sought that the alleged proceedings for reclamation, were null and void and further relief of injunction that the State Government be restrained from realising the charges for reclamation.
(3.) The suit was contested, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit for injunction was not maintainable; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter; that the Collector authorised the Agriculture Department to enter upon the land for the purpose of reclamation vide order dated 22.8.1986 and that the land was reclaimed by the Director of Agriculture under the Pepsu Reclamation of Lands Act. According to the written statement, the notice was served on the owners to take back the possession of the reclaimed area. The plaintiff took back the possession of the reclaimed land and signed prescribed disposal forms stating that the land had been properly reclaimed to their satisfaction. In all these circumstances, the plaintiffs' suit was liable to be dismissed. In all these cases, it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that there was no proper notification under Section 4 of the Pepsu Reclamation Act and, therefore, any reclamation done by the State Government was illegal and without any proper notice to the plaintiffs. In view of that finding the plaintiffs' suits for declaration were decreed, whereas relief of injunction was declined.