ANITA GARG Vs. BHATINDA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHATINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2600 of 1984 and 162 of 1989 are being disposed of as they relate to acquisition of land covered by the same notification.

(2.) On 30th August, 1979, notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act (for short the Act) was published intending to acquire 27.21 acres of land under a scheme prepared under the Act at Bhatinda. Since no action was taken for three years, the notice was quashed by the High Court. Subsequently, a letter was written by the Trust to Municipal Committee not sanction the plan for construction of houses in the area which was sought to be acquired under the scheme. The petitioners raised construction on their plots after getting sanction from Municipal Committee after spending Rs., 50,000/-. A resolution was also passed by the Improvement Trust to revive the old scheme. However, this order was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure P.6. Notice under Section 36 of the Act was published in the newspaper 'Tribune' on 10th February, 1984. It is stated that similar notices were published in the Tribune on 17th and 24th February, 1984. In the official gazette such notices were published, as stated, on 26th February, 2nd March and 9th March, 1984. Ultimately, the scheme was sanctioned by the Government on 5th March, 1987. Two petitions were filed as already stated, one in the year 1984 and the second in 1989 challenging the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) The contention of the counsel is that the acquisition proceedings are illegal as the first notice was published in the newspaper and subsequently in the gazette. The relevant dates have already been mentioned above. There is no force in this contention. Provisions of Section 36(2) and 40(3) of the Act are mandatory as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Prof. Jodh Singh v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, 1984 PunLJ 413. Subsequently, this decision was considered by a Division Bench in Phagwara Improvement Trust v. The State of Punjab, 1985 PunLJ 254. In that case, notifications under Section 36 of the Act were first published in the Tribune on 9th, 16th and 23rd April, 1976 and thereafter in the Punjab Government gazette on 7th, 14th and 21st May, 1976. The question raised therein was whether the notification published in the Tribune at the first time would amount to substantial compliance of the provisions contained in the Act. It was held that those provisions being mandatory the non-compliance thereof would vitiate proceedings and such illegality could not be rectified, under Section 101(1)(d) of the Act. The contention of the counsel for the respondents that in view of the Schedule attached to the Act, the first notification published shall be deemed to be equivalent to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In my view that will not make any difference. Under the Land Acquisition Act the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 are almost identical with the provisions of Sections 36 and 40 of the Act. A case under the Land Acquisition Act was under consideration of this Court in Rakha Singh v. State of Haryana,1989 LACC 173. There the notification was first published in the newspaper and thereafter in the official gazette and it was held that it could not successfully be argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were complied with in the matter of acquiring the land.