LAWS(P&H)-1979-8-66

NORTHERN CARRIERS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On August 02, 1979
Northern Carriers Pvt Ltd Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the award of the Collector, dated October 5, 1972 fixing the compensation of the petitioner's land.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that a notification dated November, 4, 1966 regarding a scheme was issued under Section 36 of the Act. Thereafter, another notification under Section 41 of the Act was issued in May, 1968. The petitioner, it is alleged did not know about the aforesaid notifications. He purchased land measuring 21 Kanals 1 Marla comprised in Khasra Nos. 2558/3-03, 2559/3-00, 2572/0-5, 2574/3-12, 2565/2-06, 2577/3-12, 2578/6-01, 2579/2-00, 2565/0-16 and 2566/0-05, which was a part of that scheme from the Rehabilitation Authorities vide sale deed dated June 25, 1971. On October 5, 1972, the Collector gave an award and fixed the compensation of the property taking into consideration notification dated November 4, 1966. The petitioner has challenged the notification under Section 36 and the award inter alia on the ground that when the said notification was issued, the Trust had no right to acquire the property in dispute as it belonged to the Central Government. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute was owned by the Central Government when the notification under Section 36 of the Act was issued. He further submits that notification under Section 36 of the Act is equivalent to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . According to him, if the land vested in the Central Government, a notification under Section 36 of the Act could not be issued by the respondents. He further argues that the said notification is void qua the land in dispute and that no award could be given by the Collector on the basis of that notification.