VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3488 to 3492 of 1988 and 2862, 2863, 2865, 2866 and 4159 of 1989 filed by the claimant-landowners, and Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8084, 8149 and 8172 of 1988 filed by the Karnal Improvement Trust.

(2.) THE petitioners in all the petitions have challenged the award of the President, Tribunal under the Town Improvement Act, 1922, Karnal.

(3.) I will refer to the facts as given in Civil Writ Petition No. 3489 of 1988. The Karnal Improvement Trust (in short the Trust), vide resolution dated, August 20, 1973, resolved to develop a Scheme (Scheme No. 37), for an area measuring 1215 Sq. yards. Pursuant to the resolution, notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (for short the Act), was issued on September 7, 1973, and the declaration under Section 42 of the Act on January 14, 1976. The land sought to be acquired was initially owned by the Provincial Government and was sold to Sarvshri Palli Mal, Bansi Lal in one-half share and the other half to Nawab Qutub Din and Ghulam Sharif Khan, in the year 1854. The purchasers named their respective areas as Palli Ganj and Nawab Ganj, respectively. It was in a rectangular shape having four gates. In the enclosures, there were shops and in front of these shops there were courtyards who were primarily used by the tenants for their business activity to pile up their grains/vegetables in separate heaps. The courtyards in front of the shops were the private property of the owners. Before 1920, the Muaicipal Committee, Karnal (for short 'the Committee') built a pucca road passing through the enclosure. The Committee claimed ownership over the land on which the metelled road was constructed and this led to civil litigation between the Committee and the owners The District Judge, Karnal, found that the area in front of the shops was the private property of the owners and the Committee could not lay claim to it. On appeal to the Chief Court of Lahore, the judgment of the District Judge was reversed and it was disaffirmed that the area in front of the shops was the property of the Committee. The owner went up in appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment of the Chief Court of Lahore and the Privy Council in its judgment in Nawab Bahadur Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan and Anr. v. The Municipal Committee of Karnal, I. L. R. 1920 Lah. 117, held that the ground on which the metalled road was constructed was the private property of the owners. It affirmed that the area in front of the shops was the property of the owners. The judgment of the Chief Court was reversed and that of the District Judge restored.