SATYA DEVI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved of the action of the respondents in notifying a Town Planning Scheme of Area No. 9 Part-I whereby plot of the land of the petitioner measuring 730 square yards out of total plot area of 750 square yards is sought to be transferred for utilization in the public road.

(2.) IT is alleged that the petitioner purchased plot measuring 750 square yards comprising Khasra No. 1990 situated at Bhatinda from Madan Lal son of Ramji Dass vide Registered Sale Deed No. 839 dated 20.5.1971. Said Madan Lal had earlier purchased this plot from one Jangir Singh son of Sher Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid sale in favour of the petitioners Mutation No. 16008 has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners which is duly reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78. Respondent No. 1 formulated a Town Planning Scheme for the area No. 9 Part I. It is alleged that on coming to know of the said Scheme, the petitioners applied to respondent No. 1 on 8.9.1983 for demarcation of their plot. The application was returned in original by respondent No. 1 with the endorsement "according to the Scheme leaving a small portion, the rest of the plot falls under the 100 ft wide road". The petitioners have placed on record a site plan of the area showing the plot under the Scheme and it appears that only small portion of the plot that too a corner is out of the Scheme. It is stated that 730 square yards out of 750 square yards is intended to be transferred for the road. The petitioners have challenged the Scheme and the action of the respondents, inter alia, on the grounds - (1) that under section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, not more than 35% of the built area can be included in the Scheme and not more than 25% of the rea can be taken away, without payment of the compensation. (2) No public notice has been issued before the formulation and implementation of the Scheme. (3) The Scheme has not been sanctioned by the State Government as required under section 190(2) (iii). (4) No ownership statement has been prepared as required under section 192 of the Act.

(3.) THE entire case of the petitioners is based upon the alleged violation of provisions of Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act which reads as under :-