SATISH GUPTA Vs. YAMUNA NAGAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satish Gupta and 26 others have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction of plots bearing Nos. 1 to 5 carved out from the green land/park and the case set up by the petitioners is that they are the permanent residents of Yamunanagar where Improvement Trust was constituted under Section 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act). The Yamunanagar Improvement Trust (hereinafter called the Trust) prepared a development scheme at Yamunanagar which ultimately came to be known as Scheme No. 3 for Shastri Nagar Colony. The lay-out plan of this colony provided the lay out of the houses, green belts, landscape features etc. Health Centre and Primary School have also been provided. The scheme was published under Section 36 of the Act and finally approved by the State Government under Section 41 of the Act and was duly notified under Section 42 of the said Act. The petitioners have purchased plots in Shahstri Nagar Colony by way of auction or otherwise on the assurance of the layout plan. The petitioners except Petitioners No. 5 and 14, purchased the plots around green belt featuring health centre and primary school and the park. They were purchased on the assurance of the layout plan that it would not be changed. It provided them not only fresh air but also sufficient light. The petitioners also purchased the plots on the ground that the green Wit will provide good play ground for their children etc. The petitioners have constructed their houses on plots which were allotted to them. Some of the houses were constructed as back as in the year 1975-76 and the petitioners are enjoying the green belt with park facilities etc. The Scheme No. 3 relating to Shastri Nagar Colony as sanctioned under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act, has not been amended or modified by the State Government. The Trust gave an advertisement for the auction of five residential plots to be carved out of the green belt on 25.10.1987 so much so plots No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were auctioned to respondent No. 3 on 29.10.1987 and plot No. 3 was auctioned to respondent No. 4 and they had deposited the amount as per the advertisement 25 per cent of the bid money. The residents of the colony were affected by the auction of the plots No. 1 to 5 and they in the shape of a deputation met respondent No. 2 to cancel the auction but to no effect. With the above broad allegations, the petitioners have prayed that the auction of the plots Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of Respondents No. 3 and 4 be cancelled as the Scheme which was originally notified under Section 24 of the Act, has not been changed or modified by the State Government.

(2.) Notice of the writ was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. the Trust and its Administrator. According to them, the petitioners have concealed the material facts of the case. According to these respondents, the petitioners have tried to make out a case by stating that there was a green belt including a park and that the same has now been converted into residential plots which have been sold in public auction but this contention of the petitioners is incorrect, The land under the present Shastri Colony was acquired in 1965 under sub section 1 of Section 41 of the Act and the award was passed on 9.9.1966. The open space shown in the layout plan P-1 was originally earmarked for setting up a Health Centre and a Primary School. This open space was to be sold to the interested institutions for the said purpose. However, no institution/party ever came forward for the purchase of this space for the said purpose. By the passage of time, it was seen that sewerage system of large area of this colony around the said open space and the open space itself was at lower level. Sewerage water was not being properly drained out and so was the case with the rainy water. It was to meet this situation that a disposal work was constructed over a big portion of the said open space somewhere in the year 1973 or 1974. Subsequently, a gas godown was constructed in the year 1975-76. There was a persistent demand from the local residents for a park and, therefore, a big park measuring 314' x 90' was carved out on a suitable rectangular portion of the said open space and park was developed in the year 1986 at the huge cost of Rs. 1.24 lacs. After construction of disposal work, gas godown and the park, only a small portion of the said open space remained unutilised. Out of this unutilised portion five residential plots were carved out and these were sold in public auction on 29.10.1987 at the total cost of more than 5 lacs for the reasons that there was a big financial loss. Hand the interested parties purchased the said open space for the purpose of health centre and primary school, the Trust would have earned Rs. 40 to 50 lacs but it only earned 5 lacs. A heavy expenditure of Rs. 1.24 lacs had to be spent for the development of the park. The area was lying useless as the local residents were keeping heaps of dung cakes and animals were being injurious to health of the people and there was every apprehension of encroachment on this portion. A lot of money was required for the implementation of the Development Scheme for the purpose of sewerage, water supply, street lights etc. The financial position of the Trust was not even satisfactory and employees were to be given salary in time. A number of employees retired in the year 1972 and the Trust was supposed to pay gratuity etc. The auction was most competitive and fetched a handsome price of more than five lacs. 'Four-walls over 4 of the 5 residential plots were also raised by the concerned bidders. It was also stated by these respondents that the petitioners are estopped from agitating the disputed matter in the present petition on account of their conduct. No resident of the locality raised a finger when disposal work was constructed in the year 1973-74. No body objected when the gas godown was constructed in the year 1975-76 and also when the park was developed in the year 1986 at a huge cost. Now, they cannot agitate when a very small unutilised portion of the space has been converted in to a residential plots and particularly, when these very petitioners were misutilising the space in question by creating a health risk. A big and beautiful green park has already been developed in the said open space, though there was no provision for the park in the original layout plan.

(3.) On merits, the stand of these respondents is that the open site was not originally meant for green belt, rather, it was meant for a Primary School and Health Centre. Only a small unutilised area of the open space has been converted into five residential plots but these do not lie in front of the houses of the petitioners. In short, the defence of respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the layout scheme has not been changed substantially as only a small piece of land has been converted into a residential one by carving out the plots which have been auctioned according to rules.