IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. NO. 16 OF 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: February 6, 2009 Municipal Committee, Bathinda …Appellant Versus Satya Devi and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Rupinder S. Khosla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 3.4.2008, passed in C.W.P. No. 4759 of 1983, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner- respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed and the Notification/Scheme to the extent it intends to take away their entire plot has been quashed. It has further been directed that the appellants are not to transfer or take over more than 35% of their plot area for utilisation under the Scheme. Still further, the respondents have been directed to pay compensation to the L.P.A. No. 16 of 2009 (O&M) petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in accordance with law for the area beyond 25% of the plot within a period of two months along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, if no statutory interest is provided. In the event statutory interest is provided, the petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been held entitled to such statutory interest. We have perused the judgment and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The findings with regard to violation of Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is un- exceptionable. The provisions of Section 192(1)(c) of the Act have been declared ultra-vires of Article 14 of the Constitution by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Pal v. Municipality, Bathinda, AIR 1994 SC 2550. Accordingly, the aforementioned directions issued by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity. In view of the above, the instant appeal is wholly without any merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Since the appeal itself has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel any necessity to pass any order in the miscellaneous applications which have been filed for condoning the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal as well as delay of 164 days in re-filing the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) February 6, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2