IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.985 of 2002 Date of decision: 3.2.2009 Dharam Chand -----Appellant Vs. Municipal Committee/Municipality, Bhatinda and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.K.Singla, Advocate for the appellants In LPA Nos.985 of 2002 and 122 of 2003. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. K.S.Mangat, Advocate for the appellant in LPA No.126 of 2003. Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellants in LPA Nos.1033 and 1034 of 2002. Mr. V.K.Kataria, Advocate for appellants In LPA No.1069 of 2002. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Salil Sagar, Advocate with Mr. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the contemner. LPA No.985 of 2002 Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This order will dispose of LPA Nos.985, 1033, 1034, 1069 of 2002 and 122 and 126 of 2003, arising out of common judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8.8.2002. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions of the petitioners but directed the respondents to complete the procedure of acquisition within six months subject to the observation that the acquisition will be at the price prevalent at the time of framing of Town Planning Scheme which was subject matter of challenge i.e. 30.4.1983. 2. Facts noticed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge pertain to CWP No.16731 of 1990. Therein, the grievance of the writ petitioners was that by the Town Planning Scheme, the Municipal Committee sought to demolish the buildings without framing a building scheme under section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short, ‘the Municipal Act’). It is only by framing “building scheme” that 25% of the acquired land could be taken free. The effort of the Municipal Committee to take 25% land free in execution of a Town Planning Scheme under the provisions of the Punjab 2 LPA No.985 of 2002 Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, ‘the 1922 Act’) was not valid. 3. The stand of the Municipal Committee was that under section 192 of the Municipal Act, Town Planning scheme as well as Building Schemes were covered and demolition of buildings even in execution of Town Planning Scheme was valid. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the difference between Town Planning Scheme and the Building Scheme could not be ignored. Under Town Planning Scheme, un-built land could be taken by paying compensation to the extent of 75%, while in the case of a building scheme, even buildings could be acquired by paying compensation to the extent of 75%. The Municipal Committee has, thus, to frame a building scheme if it wanted to proceed against built up area. Accordingly, it was directed as under:- “It will either have to frame a Building scheme or acquire the land as per the provisions of the Act, which procedure would disentitle the respondent-Committee to get 25% of the land acquired without paying any compensation. Since this inquiry has not been gone into by the respondents, these petitions will have to be 3 LPA No.985 of 2002 allowed with the observation that it will be open to the respondent Committee to acquire the land by paying full compensation as per the provisions of the Building scheme and the act. While doing so, since the proceedings for acquisition have been stayed at the behest of the petitioners, who have been able to stall the same for over 11 years, I feel that the respondents should be allowed to acquire the land as per the prices prevalent at the time of the framing of the Town Planning Scheme as has been observed in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran’s case (supra). With the aforesaid observations, these petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to complete the procedure of acquisition of land in case they want to proceed with the same within six months from the receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. In the appeal, grievance of the appellant is that once it was held that framing of a building scheme was necessary for proceeding against built up area, compensation could not be restricted to the price prevalent 11 years ago. The compensation was required to be paid at 4 LPA No.985 of 2002 the current market price when acquisition was to take place for which a fresh process was required to be initiated. 6. An affidavit had been filed by the Municipal Officer, Bathinda on 12.11.2008 stating that after framing of the Town Planning Scheme dated 30.4.1983 proposing to take 25% of the area of the land owners under section 192(3) of the Municipal Act to broaden the existing road, a notification dated 18.1.1991 had already been issued under section 4 read with section 17 of the 1894 Act for acquiring the land and award dated 22.12.1992 had been announced by the Collector. Compensation awarded by the Collector was enhanced by the reference Court to Rs.1000/- per square yard vide award dated 22.1.2003 against which appeals were pending in this Court at the instance of land owners. Some of the writ petitioners had also received compensation and preferred references under section 28-A of the 1894 Act. Thus, even if Town Planning scheme was not covered under section 192 of the Municipal Act and a building scheme was required to be framed, the said requirement was not applicable when proceedings under 5 LPA No.985 of 2002 the 1894 Act had been taken. There was, thus, no requirement of any fresh scheme being framed. Acquisition under 1894 Act is not shown to be suffering from any illegality. There was, in these circumstances, no scope of any further order, irrespective of merits of order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Confronted with the question whether the petitioners are adversely affected when proceedings under the 1894 Act have been taken, which safeguard the right of the petitioners to get entire compensation, irrespective of the question whether there is Town Planning Scheme or a building scheme, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to show any defect in the proceedings taken under the 1894 Act. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant has not been able to prefer a reference under section 18 of the 1894 Act, on account of pendency of these proceedings, the appellant should be given liberty to do so now within two months from today has not been opposed by learned counsel for the Municipal Committee. 6 LPA No.985 of 2002 8. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants in LPA No.126 of 2003, submitted that operative part of order of learned Single Judge implies that proceedings under the 1894 Act have also been quashed. 9. We do not find any warrant whatsoever for this submission. There is no reference in the impugned judgment to the proceedings under the 1894 Act nor any fault has been found with the said proceedings nor Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is able to show any defect in the said proceedings. There could, thus, be no question of such proceedings having been quashed by implication. 10. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals with a direction that the appellants-writ petitioners will be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act with reference to notification dated 18.1.1991 under section 4 of the Act and if any of them has not so far preferred reference under section 18 of the 1894 Act, they will be entitled to do so within two months from today. The appellants-writ petitioners will also be entitled to receive 7 LPA No.985 of 2002 compensation already awarded by the Collector if not so far received. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 3, 2009 (Jitendra Chauhan) ‘gs’ Judge 8