GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3774, 5591, 7103, 7105, 7106, 7205, 7209, 7210, 3761, 3762, 3836, 3854, 3855, 3856, 3870, 3906, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4982 and 4984 of 1975, in which the same notification issued by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, respondent No. 2, (hereinafter called the Trust) dated July 17, 1974, and published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated July 26, 1974, has been challenged.

(2.) For the purpose of appreciating the matter in controversy, the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 3774 of 1975 (Gurdev Singh and Others vs. The State of Punjab and Others) may briefly be narrated. A meeting of the Trust was held on May 23, 1973, in which by Resolution No. 8, a development scheme known as "Model Town Extension Scheme Part II" under Section 24 read with Section 28(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act) for the area measuring approximately 400 acres, was framed. After complying with the provisions of the Act regarding issuance of the notices to the owners of the property and inviting objections, the same was forwarded to the Government. It was sanctioned by the Government under Section 41(1) of the Act. A copy of the same is Annexure P.3. The same was sanctioned on July 17, 1974, but was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on July 26, 1974. The land of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is included in the said scheme. Before the scheme was finally approved, notice a copy of which is Annexure P.1, was issued to the Trust. The petitioners have challenged the notice, Annexure P.1, and the notification, Annexure P.3 on a number of grounds in the writ petition. During the arguments, challenge was made to the validity of the notification on the following grounds :

(3.) Replies were filed separately on behalf of the Trust as well as the State Government. According to the reply by the Trust, the requisite notices had been sent to the petitioners and others whose property was included in the scheme. Notices had also been published in the Government Gazette as well as in the newspapers as required under the law. It was averred that initially the State Government had sanctioned the scheme for acquisition in part only. Subsequently, the entire scheme was sanctioned by another notification dated May 21, 1975, a copy of which was also annexed to the reply. Regarding documents to be sent along with the scheme under Section 40(2) of the Act, it was averred that necessary documents had been sent. Reply by the State, as filed initially, was in similar terms. However, an application, vide Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 115 of 1978 under Order VI rule 17, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed on January 19, 1978 (which was ordered to be heard with the main petition), with a prayer to amend the written statement in some particulars. Alongwith the same, amended written statement was also filed. According to the amended written statement, it has been contended that the development scheme as forwarded by the Trust, was approved by the Notification, Annexure P.3 dated July 26, 1974, as a whole and not for acquisition part only. It was further averred that the lay out plan as approved by the Chief Town Planner was submitted by the Trust after the issuance of this notification and the same was sent to the State Government for approval. The second notification issued on June 6, 1975, a copy of which is annexed by the Trust to its reply, relates to the same. It has been averred that the subsequent notification was issued and published as a matter of abundant caution, otherwise, the development scheme in its entirety had been sanctioned by the impugned notification, Annexure P.3. According to further averments, all the necessary documents, as required under Section 40(2) of the Act had been sent by the Trust to the Government.