IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 1. LPA No. 561 of 2011 The Improvement Trust, Sangrur …Appellant Versus Ram Chander and others …Respondents 2. LPA No. 726 of 2011 The Improvement Trust, Sangrur …Appellant Versus Ramesh Kumar and others …Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate. for the appellant-Improvement Trust, Sangrur. Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in LPA No. 726 of 2011) Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 (in LPA No. 561 of 2011) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KU M.M. KU M.M. KU M.M. KUMAR, J MAR, J MAR, J MAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 561 and 726 of 2011 preferred by the Improvement Trust, Sangrur, against the common judgment dated 5.5.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the Scheme notified under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), had lapsed because the notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued after a gap of more than three years. LPA Nos. 561 and 726 of 2011 2 2. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Trust has drawn our attention to the averments made in para 9 of the grounds of appeal. According to it the land was acquired for a Scheme known as ‘Old Jail Scheme, Patiala Road, Sangrur’, for residential-cum-commercial purposes. According to the lay out plan there were total 25 shops and 23 of them have been sold. The police quarters have been built in the area earmarked for the residential area. It has been emphasised that the Scheme has been implemented completely. 3. In view of the aforesaid factual position we asked the learned counsel for the appellant-Trust that how many persons are left to be accommodated. Mr. Sharma after obtaining instructions has pointed out that only two persons, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Daya Nand (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in LPA No. 726 of 2011) have been left out and there is none else to dispute the acquisition. According to the learned counsel the current rate of the land is `62,000/- per square yard and two shops measuring 30 square yard can be allotted to them despite the fact that they were tenants. 4. Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in LPA No. 726 of 2011) has stated that in view of the facts that notification has lapsed, the appellant-Trust has no legal right. Therefore, he has pointed out that the shops may be allotted to his clients at a concessional rate. 5. Keeping in view the peculiar facts that the development scheme, namely, ‘Old Jail Scheme, Patiala Road, Sangrur’, has been substantially implemented and only two persons are left with the dispute, it would not be prudent to quash the same because quashing of the Scheme at this juncture would result into complete LPA Nos. 561 and 726 of 2011 3 chaos and un-settle the settled claims. Moreover, there are arguable points which may eventually favourable to the appellant- Trust like tenant has no right to challenge acquisition. However, we do not wish to opine on the issue and settle the dispute by issuing acceptable directions. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the Scheme titled as ‘Old Jail Scheme, Patiala Road, Sangrur’, would lapse. The claim of the writ petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in LPA No. 726 of 2011) shall be deemed to be settled by offering them two shops about measuring 30 square yard at the rate of ` 40,000/- per square yard. We find that there is no serious dispute to the aforesaid direction. 6. In view of the above, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 21, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 JUDGE UDGE UDGE UDGE PKapoor