Civil Writ Petition No. 8396 of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8396 of 1987 Date of decision:- 19.04.2011 Malkiat Singh ....Petitioner Vs. The Barnala Improvement Trust, Barnala and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J.(ORAL) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the acquisition of 7.6 acres of land intended to be acquired for Development Scheme for a residential-cum-commercial area. The petitioner claims to be owner of the land measuring 4 Kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 386//25 (0-15), 434//1/1 (0-10) and 435//5 Min (2-15) on the basis of purchase from the Punjab Financial Corporation in an auction held on 20.07.1983. The petitioner alleges that in the second week of August, 1987, the Improvement Trust has obtained sanction for a Development Scheme in respect of an area measuring 7.6 acres, which included the land owned by the petitioner. A notification under Section 42 (1) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short ‘the Act’), appended as Annexure P-1, has been published on 15.04.1987. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on enquiries he came to know that the Improvement Trust framed a 1 Civil Writ Petition No. 8396 of 1987 scheme under Section 36 of the Act, which was published in three different newspapers in Hindi, Punjabi and English apart from Government Gazette. The first publication was dated 15.04.1986 and the last one was dated 09.05.1986. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice under Section 38 of the Act was issued to the land owners such as petitioner, within 30 days of the first publication of the notice. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to file objections to the scheme. It is also alleged that the scheme has been framed with malafide intention at the instance of the then Chairman of the Improvement Trust and an Akali leader. The scheme covers ‘shamlat’ land belonging to Sandhu Patti, but is in possession of Dharam Singh etc. who are not vacating the same. The then Chairman is the co-owner of the land. He and other owners of the land failed to recover the possession of the said land, therefore, the mechanism of acquiring land was devised. It is also alleged that the Improvement Trust has no means and is not in a position to develop and execute the scheme. The ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not served with any notice as required under Section 38 of the Act. Therefore, he did not file objections against the scheme, which affects the right of property. The petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the resolution, in accordance of which the scheme has been framed. It is alleged that there was no resolution passed by the Trust. It is also pointed out that in the notice of the scheme, published under Section 36 of the Act, boundaries are not correctly described, therefore, the scheme mentioned in the publication Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 cannot be sustained. In reply on behalf of the respondents, filed in the year 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 8396 of 1987 1987, it has been inter-alia pleaded that the Punjab Financial Corporation is recorded as owner of the land in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and that the notice was served upon the Punjab Financial Corporation. There is no entry in the Jamabandi that the petitioner is the owner of Khasra Nos. 386//25 (0-15), 434//1/1 (0-10) and 435//5 Min (2-15). There is no entry in the Jamabandi in respect of purchase of land in favour of the petitioner. It is pleaded that notice under Section 38 of the Act was published in three newspapers. Moreover, a notice under Section 40 (3) of the Act was also published in the newspapers and Punjab Government Gazette. It is pointed out that period of 30 days is to be reckoned from the first publication in the newspaper. It is also pointed out that the Process Server of the Office went to the site again and again, but no tiller was found there. Therefore, the notice was pasted on a conspicuous place on the land in question. It is pointed out that the Chairman has no personal interest in the land as alleged and that the land in question was owned by ‘Sandhu Patti’ and is meant for Dharamshala and there is no question of personal interest of an individual. It is also pointed out that the scheme has been notified after the same was approved by the Site Selection Committee comprising of Joint Director, Local Government, Punjab and Senior Town Planner, Patiala. It is also pleaded that boundaries of the scheme have been described correctly in the notification. The writ petition came up for motion hearing on November 12, 1987 when an argument was raised that the petitioner was not served with a notice under Section 38 of the Act and thus, he was deprived to file objections against the scheme. While issuing notice of motion, this Court stayed dispossession as well. 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 8396 of 1987 We have gone through the pleadings carefully and find that after the notification under Section 36 of the Act was published, notice was required to be served on every person, to whom the Trust considers to be owner of the property and whose land is proposed to be acquired in execution of the scheme. In reply, it is a categorical case of the Trust that in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 i.e. preceding the publication of notification under Section 36 of the Act, the Punjab Financial Corporation is recorded as owner of the land in question. Notice, as contemplated under Section 38 of the Act, has been served upon the Punjab Financial Corporation. The petitioner has not controverted the assertion of the Trust in the written statement that the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 i.e. Jamabandi after the alleged purchase by the petitioner on 20.07.1983. Thus, it cannot be said that the provision of Section 38 of the Act has not been complied with. Apart from the said fact, the scheme has been widely published. Still, the petitioner had not filed objections to the scheme. Since there was no objection to the scheme, the Trust had proceeded with the acquisition of land legally and validly. There is no infirmity in the acquisition process. The plea that the Chairman of the Trust and one Kartar Singh Sandhu had great influence on the authorities concerned and the scheme has been framed with malafide intention, is again not tenable. The part of the land, subject matter of scheme, was owned by ‘Sandhu Patti’, meaning thereby that it is for the benefit of the Sandhu community. It is not personal property of any one person. The petitioner is not deriving any title under Dharam Singh, who is said to be in possession of the suit land. If the acquisition was intended to 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 8396 of 1987 dispossess Dharam Singh, it is Dharam Singh alone who could have made grievance in respect of acquisition on the grounds which may be available to him. Since in the revenue record, the petitioner is not recorded as owner and the notice of the scheme has been widely published, we do not find that there is any denial of opportunity to file objections against the scheme under Section 38 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the case. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) 19.04.2011 JUDGE ajp 5