`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6455 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Rajinder Kumar and others. -----Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G.,Punjab. Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the respondent/Improvement Trust. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of scheme framed under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, “the Act”) known as extension scheme of Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikri Wala Nagar (for short, “the SST Nagar Extension Scheme”). 2. Case of the petitioners is that vide notification dated 3.12.1973, the SST Nagar Extension Scheme was framed by the Improvement Trust, Patiala. This was followed by notice dated CWP No.6455 of 2008 14.1.1974 under Section 36 of the Act and notification dated 30.12.1976 under Section 42 of the Act. On 11.7.1978, the Improvement Trust accepted the request of the petitioners to exempt constructed area from the Scheme. Resolution of the Trust dated 19.7.1978 has been annexed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. Accordingly, in the award dated 28.7.1978, constructed area was not included. Thereafter, on 28.10.1992, a second proposal was made by the Trust to acquire the constructed area which was earlier excluded from the scheme, to which the petitioners objected, on which the scheme was dropped. Inspite of this, resolution dated 27.10.2005 was passed, proposing to include the property of the petitioners in the scheme, followed by notice dated 10.2.2006 under Section 36 of the Act and notification dated 22.1.2007, whereby the development scheme has been sanctioned known as SST Nagar Extension Scheme. The petitioners objected to the same on the ground that there being constructions on the property included in the scheme, the same were liable to be exempted. 3. In the reply filed by the Improvement Trust, the prayer in the petition has been opposed by submitting that earlier exclusion was on account of shortage of funds which could not be treated as a bar to acquisition of the property of the petitioner in a later scheme, when such property was required in public interest for development. The property was required for restoring the blocked road and for carving out plots. Soap factory set up by the 2 CWP No.6455 of 2008 petitioners could not be allowed in a residential area as per the master plan and thus, the area claimed by the petitioners in 6 Bighas and 13 Biswas could not be exempted from acquisition. 4. When this petition came up for hearing earlier on 28.1.2009, followed order was passed:- “Acquisition, inter-alia, included factory and three houses of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the factory can be stopped and houses may be exempted from acquisition or suitable area may be allotted in lieu of houses which may be acquired. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust seeks time. Adjourned to 10.3.2009.” 5. Even though matter has been adjourned several times, no affidavit has been filed by the Improvement Trust. It has been orally stated that the Trust was opposed to exempting constructed area. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that objections to the inclusion of property of the petitioners were raised and the same ought to have been considered by the State Government before finalizing acquisition. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan 3 CWP No.6455 of 2008 Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627, paras 18 to 20. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to direction for consideration of objections being issued. 9. In view of above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab to consider the objections of the petitioners against inclusion of houses claimed to have been constructed by the petitioners. The same may be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners may, if so advised, appear before the Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab, for putting forward their view point on 23.8.2010 or on such other date as may be fixed by the said Secretary. The Secretary may pass a speaking order after considering the view point of the petitioners. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 15, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4