IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1970 of 1988 Date of Decision: March 26,2008 Gurpal Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus Sangrur Improvement Trust,Sangrur ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Basu,Advocate for the respondents * * * Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition for quashing development scheme prepared by Sangrur Improvement Trust, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as ` the Trust') with regard to 51 Acres Development Scheme outside Nabha gate and award No.1 of 1987 dated 11.6.1987. Case of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition in brief is that the petitioners were owner in possession of the plots of land situated at Sangrur and many of them had constructed their houses over the said plots and were residing therein. Respondent No.1 had issued notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on 3.7.1978. The Trust had no intention to acquire the land. It simply wanted to freeze the development of the land of the petitioners. Consequently, no sanction of the State Government was obtained under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act. The Trust then passed resolution No.60 on 3.2.1984 purporting to re-notify the scheme. Notice under Section 36 of the Act, was published on 6.4.1984. Objections to the scheme were invited CWP No.1970 of 1988 -2- within 30 days of the first publication made on 7.2.1984. No notice was served on the petitioners under Section 38 of the Act. Petitioners learned that the Trust had issued notice on 12.3.1984 but the same were not served on the land owners. Another scheme of 19 acres was also framed and was published under Section 36 of the Act. The scheme lapsed for want of sanction within three years. The Trust again re-notified the same in the year 1984 but the same was dropped vide resolution No. 28 dated 9.10.1985. Respondent No.1 in its written statement took the preliminary objection that the writ petition suffered from laches and delay. Award has been announced on 11.6.1987 and as such the validity of notification under Sections 36 and 42 of the Act could not be challenged. On merits, it was averred that the objections filed by the petitioners had been duly considered by the Trust and thereafter, the award had been passed by the Collector. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners although the name of the counsel for the petitioners has been duly shown in the cause list. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the case was covered by the decision in Sangrur Improvement Trust,Sangrur vs. State of Punjab and others (1998-1) 118 PLR 97 with regard to the same acquisition proceedings wherein it has been held as under:- “ Similar provisions exists in the Punjab Town Improvement Act regarding preparation, publication and transmission of notice of the improvement scheme as per section 36 of the Act and 38 of the Act envisages notice of supposed acquisition of land and its service upon the owner as well as upon the CWP No.1970 of 1988 -3- occupier requiring them to file objections, if any, within a stipulated period. Section 40 deals with consideration of objections/representations and hearing of all persons or other representatives before deciding the same. As per Section 40 of the Act, even a scheme cannot be abandoned, but for it prior approval of the State government is essential. Grievance has been made by the contesting respondent alleging non- compliance of mandatory provision of Section 36 and 38 of the Act and even not permitting them a hearing while deciding their objections/representations. As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, learned Single Judge on perusing the material placed before him came to the conclusion that the respondent's objections/representations which were a few pursuant to the notices under Section 36 and 38 of the Act were disposed of by the authorities. No material has been brought to the notice to persuade us to reverse this conclusion of the learned Single Judge. Regarding non-compliance of section 36 and 38 of the Act, the matter, in fact, stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court in Phagwara Improvement Trust case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the apex Court has considered the provisions of Sections 36,38,40 and 101 of the Act. Earlier decisions of this Court have clearly been distinguished/explained. Since the aforesaid decision of the apex Court squarely covers the point in controversy, making reference to the provisions contained in CWP No.1970 of 1988 -4- the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial pronouncements of the apex Court would be wholly unnecessary. Respectfully, following the decision of the apex Court in Phagwara Improvement Trust case(supra), we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be reversed. Accordingly, we accpet the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, we dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents. No order as to costs” In view of the decision rendered in Sangrur Improvement Trust (supra), this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) March 26, 2008 Judge arya