RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 8960, 9636 and 7523 of 2006 as the development scheme framed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Improvement Trust, Patiala (for brevity 'the Trust') and its officers has been challenged in all these petitions. All these writ petitions are directed against notification dated 18.6.2004 (Annexure P.3) issued under Section 36 and another notification dated 10/11.6.2005 (Annexure P.4) issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity 'the Act'). The petitioner has also challenged the award dated 27.4.2006 (annexure P.7) regarding acquisition of land situated in the revenue estate of village Tripri Saidan, Tehsil and District Patiala. There are other cognate prayers also made in the petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Improvement Trust, patiala vide resolution No. 2264 dated 26.3.2004 prepared a development which is known as Improvement Scheme situated at Sirhind road in respect of land measuring 34 acres under Sections 24, 26, 28(2) of the Act for residential and commercial purposes. The total area of 270 kanals 7 marlas approximately 34 acres was sought to be acquired. After the preparation of the scheme and taking all necessary steps envisaged by the Act respondent- Trust issued a notification dated 18.6.2004 under Section 36 of the Act expressing the intention to acquire land (Annexure P.3). The notification clearly pointed out the boundaries of land sought to be acquired alongwith details of land in the shape of khasra numbers with further stipulation that particulars of the scheme are clearly depicted in drawing No.PIT (P) 10/2004 dated 10.2.2004 which could be inspected at the office of Improvement Trust, Patiala, Chhotti Baradari on any working day. It is further stated that if any person has any objection to the Scheme he would send the same in writing to the Chairman of the Trust within a period of 30 days of the publication of the notice. The objection could have been filed by the land owner or any other person in the locality as per the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. The petitioners being owner of the land/plot/house filed objections claiming that they are owner in possession of the land and have constructed their houses. It is complained that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 after examination of record, including the objections filed by the petitioners and others issued notification on 10/11.6.2005 (Annexure P.4) under Section 42 of the Act and thereafter notices under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the 1894 Act') were issued and the award was announced by the Collector Land Acquisition-Improvement Trust, respondent no. 4. The petitioners have made unnecessary averments with regard to the Town and Planning Scheme framed in the year 1983. Those averments have been replied by respondent nos. 2 to 4 by stating that the Town and Planning scheme could not be implemented on account of lack of financial resources. When the matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court on 31.5.2006, the dispossession of the petitioners was stayed.

(3.) MR . M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an application as contemplated by Section 38 of the Act was submitted to respondent nos. 3 and 4 but the documents have not been supplied which has seriously prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel principles of natural justice as envisaged by Section 38 of the Act have been flagrantly violated and in the absence of documents/deposit of requisite fee no effective objection could be filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel has maintained that once there is no hearing then the acquisition proceedings including notification dated 18.6.2004 issued under Section 36 of the Act and declaration under Section 42 of the Act dated 10/11.6.2005 are liable to be set aside. His second submission is that the land of influential persons have been excluded whereas the land of persons like the petitioners who are not so influential has remained within acquisition. In that regard he has drawn our attention to the notification under Section 36 of the Act showing that it has acquired only 271 kanals and 7 marlas of land which is approximately 34 acres whereas eventually declaration has been issued under Section 42 of the Act in respect of 151 kanals of land excluding the land which have been released in favour of influential persons. According to the learned counsel under Section 43 of the Act release of land could have been possible only by alteration of scheme after due sanction from the State government. Additional argument in CWP No. 7523 of 2006