MALWA SILICATE AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Development Scheme No. 3 for Motor Vehicles Stand and Goods Transport Companies was framed by the Improvement Trust, Moga (in short 'the Trust') and notified through a public notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by publication in the Daily Tribune on 10th and 24th January, 1975. Thereafter notice under Section 38 of the Act was served by the Trust on various owners of the immovable property which was proposed to be acquired in executing that scheme inviting objections. In response thereto, Malwa Silicate and Chemical Industries, Moga, petitioner of Civil Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1976 and Manchanda Soap Works, G. T. Road, Moga, petitioner of Civil Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1976, submitted objections against the scheme to the Trust on 26.3.1975, wherein re-housing of the petitioners was also claimed. Subsequent thereto, another notice under Section 36 of the Act in respect of the approved layout plan of the development scheme was published in the Daily Tribune on 13 6.1975 and both the abovesaid petitioners also received notices on 11.6.1975 inviting fresh objections within 160 days. In response, thereto, both the petitioners preferred further objections to the layout plan of the development scheme on 7.8.1975. After the various objections so preferred, no individual notice was received by any of the petitioners by way of intimation with regard to the hearing of those objections, although, admittedly, the Trust published a fresh notice in the Daily Tribune dated August 20, 1975, in the following terms :-

(2.) The main objection raised in the two writ petitions relates to denial of opportunity of personal hearing and thus non-compliance with Section 40(1) of the Act, besides certain minor objections which perhaps cannot be raised in view of the finality provided by sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, because the scheme already stands approved and notified by the State Government vide notification dated December 18, 1975 (copy annexure P-7) under sub-section (1) of the Section 42 of the Act. With regard to the main objection, petitioner of Civil Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1978 has asserted in para No. 12 of the petition that it is mandatory for the Trust to hear in support of the objections filed by the petitioner and that the petitioner was never called for that purpose. It is further claimed that petitioner was entitled to individual notice, without denial of the publication in the Tribune dated August 20, 1975, having come to his notice. The petitioner of Civil Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1976, however, has said in clear terms in para No. 14 of the petition that he did not read the abovesaid news item in the newspaper nor it had come to his notice upto 25th August, 1975, i.e. the date of hearing for which opportunity was afforded to the affected owners of the immovable property.

(3.) Both these civil writ petitions were taken up together and vide order dated 15.7.1983, of the single Bench the case was ordered to be laid before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench in the wake of conflict between two earlier Division Benches. They expressed totally divergent views of the proposition whether after the issuance of the notification Under Section 42 of the Act, the scheme could be impugned on the ground of non-compliance of any provision of the statute on the part of the Trust or the State Government. In the meantime, the conflict was resolved by a Full Bench of this Court on April 27, 1984 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2131 of 1976, "Prof. Jodh Singh and others v. The Jullundur, 1984 RRR 36. Improvement Trust Jullundur and others." The same Full Bench to which these cases where, referred for decision vide its order of even date directed that these cases be placed before the appropriate Bench for decision in the light of the Full Bench Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 2131 of 1976.