SURINDER SINGH Vs. SANGRUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three writ petitions No. 3540, 3456 of 1987 and 3205 of 1989 are being disposed of vide this judgment, as they relate to acquisition of land situated at Sangrur under the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter called the Act). Since the facts are identical, the same are taken from CWP 3540/87.

(2.) Improvement Trust, Sangrur, the respondent passed Resolution No. 70/4 on May 17, 1978 (Annexure P-1) for approval of the preparation of a scheme for the poor outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur, according to the scheme of HUDCO. Chairman of the trust was to get notification u/s 36 of the said Act issued. Notice u/s 36 of the Act was published in the Tribune dated July 3, 1978 with respect to acquisition of 51 acres of land situate within the municipal limits and outside Nabha Gate at Sangrur. Boundaries of the land intended to be acquired were given therein. Thereafter, no action in this respect was taken. Again on February 3, 1984, a resolution was passed by the Trust in respect of the same old development scheme of 51 acres of land. Copy of the resolution is Annexure P-3. Notice u/s 36 of the said Act was published in the Tribune dated February 7, 1984, whereas in the Punjab Government Gazette such a notice was published on April 6, 1984. Copy of the notice published in the Tribune is Annexure P-5 and copy of the notice published in the Gazette is Annexure P-4. At this stage it may further be noticed that another scheme was framed known as 19 acres development scheme. The Government was recommended to drop the same vide Resolution No. 28 dated October 9, 1985 passed by the Improvement Trust. With respect to 51 acres scheme, a recommendation was also sent to the Director, Local Government, Punjab vide letter dated January 19, 1986 (Copy Annexure P-8) to drop this scheme as well. It is on these facts that the aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners whose land is being acquired and some of them have already made construction of their houses on some of the land, with a prayer for a writ for quashing the 51 acres development scheme.

(3.) The stand of the Improvement Trust is to the effect that these writ petitions have been filed at a belated stage, as the Land Acquisition Collector has also in the meantime announced the award. On facts there is not much dispute. The allegation that the earlier scheme was dropped in order to peg the prices was denied. It was stated that the Trust was dissolved and on its revival, fresh resolution was passed and proceedings initiated again. Objections were filed by the petitioners in response to the notices issued u/s 36 of the Act which were disposed of after due consideration. The scheme was announced by the Collector on June 11, 1987. The petitioners could approach the Tribunal u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The other scheme known as 19 acres scheme was dropped keeping in view the interest of the public at large. With respect to the scheme in dispute, it was asserted that about 100 applications have already been received by the Trust for allotment of plots.