IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1351 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Sudesh Kumari and others …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 11.12.2006 (P17), issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, vide which, development scheme, known as ‘South Avenue’ Scheme was sanctioned and a declaration was issued in that regard. Further challenge has been made to an award passed on 8.12.2008. It is primary contention of counsel for the petitioners that the “no objection certificate”, issued by the Government to execute the scheme, was a conditional one. In that certificate, it was specifically mentioned that the Trust should provide a 60 feet wide road to the proposed colony scheme. In the award, mentioned above, it was mentioned as under:- “The Trust has informed vide Memo No.723 dated 11.11.2008 to the undersigned that the Religious place falling in the scheme will be adjusted in the layout plan of the scheme Civil Writ Petition No.1351 of 2011 and the possession of which will not be taken, so this land is excluded from the Award. Further in this letter Trust has also informed that change of land use from Green Buffer Zone to Residential has been permitted by the Deputy District Town Planner Kapurthala vide his letter No.523/DTP(K)GLK dated 31.5.2007. As regard provision of 60’ wide road which is to be provided in the Layout plan of the scheme for which the Trust has clarified that necessary change in the layout plan under Section 43 of Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 will be made before the execution of the scheme.” Trust has never objected to the condition imposed as above. It is contention of the petitioners that it is not possible to provide a 60 feet wide road to the proposed scheme. To say so, reference has been made to a letter, written by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.5.2009 (P19) to the Financial Commissioner Revenue, State of Punjab. Heard counsel for the petitioners It is coming out from the record that none of the petitioners has filed any objection to the proposed scheme when notification under Section 36 of the Act was issued. If that is so, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 SC 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable. Furthermore, if the petitioners had any grievance against the proposed scheme/ its sanctioning then they should have raised their grievance, in the competent forum before passing of the award on 8.12.2008, this writ petition has been filed about more than two years thereafter. In view of ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1351 of 2011 Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, the writ petition can not be entertained. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioners that in the award it was mentioned that the notices under Sections 12(2) and 16 of the Act, will be issued to the land owners, however, there is no compliance to the same. Be that as it may, at this stage, no finding can be given in that regard. The petitioners, may, if so advised, raise their grievance before the competent forum, by moving an application for enhancement of compensation if they are not satisfied with the amount already awarded. So far as provision of 60 feet wide road is concerned as and when the Trust will put the Scheme into execution, as per the award passed and the condition imposed, the Trust is bound to provide the same. Similar matter came up for hearing before this Court in CWP No.17381 of 2010, wherein also the above said scheme was challenge on the similar grounds, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.9.2010. In view of facts mentioned, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 27.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3