MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA Vs. MANGAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal by Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') concerns the legality of the judgment and order dated January 21, 1982 of the learned Single Judge. it has been filed in the following circumstances:-

(2.) Mangat Rai and 19 others writ petitioners had been allotted houses in 1954 built by the State Government under the 'Cheap Tenements Housing Scheme and Shopping Centre of 170 sites at Ludhiana". At the time the plan of the site was prepared the land in dispute was shown as " low area to be filed". The site abuts on a road across which some shops have been built.

(3.) The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the cheap houses were built for weaker sections of Society. The houses are smaller in size. It is necessary for the health of the inhabitants of such small houses that there should be spacious vacant place available near such houses. The Municipal Authorities are under an obligation to see that the housing accommodation is constructed in such a manner that the people are provided with basic amenities of life. Even if no written assurance was given to the petitioners at the time of allotment of the cheap tenements that the low area shall be kept open so as to allow the people of the locality to use it for community purposes but from the tenor of the written statement it becomes clear that when the Scheme was adopted, it was the intention of the authorities to keep the area open. Whatever doubts about this matter there may be, they stand clarified by the letter dated March 2, 1973 written by the Senior Town Planner to the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. Even while sanctioning the transfer of municipal lands, the Deputy commissioner has to pay due regard to the requirements of public health and a clean environment. The provisions of the Punjab Municipal General Rules sanctioning transfer govern ordinary lands and not lands falling under the schemes prepared under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, (No. 4 of 1922). The residents of the locality had a right to object to such a transfer and such objections when raised had to be decided in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The sanction of the State Government had to be obtained. When open space is kept in a Scheme and it is desired to be brought under construction, that necessarily implies the amendment of the Scheme. In view of section 43 of the Act, a Scheme prepared under the Act can be altered only with the prior approval of the State Government had to be obtained. When and any authority subordinate to the State Government, including the Deputy Commissioner, cannot legalise alteration of the Scheme.