Baldev Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr.

S.S Kang, J.

Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions C.W.P. Nos. 5772 of 1981, 3285 and 3396 of 1986 and 3124 of 1987 is directed against the legality and validity of the scheme titled 11475. Acres DevelopmentcumHousing Accommodation Scheme on the right side of Pakhowal Road beyond Sidhwan Canal at Ludhiana" (hereinafter referred to as the `Scheme'') prepared by Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (Respondent No. 2) and approved vide resolution No. 28 passed in its meeting held on March 24, f976 and consequent acquisition proceedings taken up by Respondent No. 1 to acquire the land of the petitioners. Since the issues of law and fact raised in these writ petitions are identical, they are proposed to be disposed of by a common Judgment.

A broadbrush factual backdrop of CWP No. 5772 of 1981 will help delineate the contours of forensic controversy :

Respondent No. 2 approved the Scheme in its meeting held on March 24, 1976 through Resolution No. 28. the Chairman of Respondent No. 2 was authorised to issue notices under Sections 36, 37 and 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notices under Section 36 of the Act inviting objections to the Scheme were published in the Government Gazette dated July 2, 1976 and also in the daily newspapers.

After the expiry of the prescribed period, the objections submitted by the objectors were considered. Those of the objectors who desired to be heard were given a hearing. The Scheme, with certain modifications, was submitted to the State Government for sanction vide Resolution No. 66 dated May 7, 1979. Notices under subsection (3) of Section 40 of the Act were published notifying inter alia the fact that the Trust had submitted an application to the Punjab Government for the sanction of the Scheme.

The Punjab Government in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 41 of the Act sanctioned this Scheme. Description of the lands comprised in the Scheme is given therein. It is also intimated that the Trust may acquire the area comprised in the Scheme or any part of it and may lay out new roads; streets and provide open spaces. The State Government notified the sanction of a Scheme through notification dated June 28, 1979 issued under Section 41 of the Act. Notices under Section 16 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act were served on Baldev Singh, petitioner No. I and some other petitioners. Aggrieved by the farming of the Scheme and the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners filed CWP No. 5772 of 1981 on December 22, 1981.

On receipt of notice of motion, the respondents filed written statements controverting the material averments of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a replication.

On February 9, 1984, the Motion Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed material facts while filing the writ petition.

The petitioners filed a review petition, which was also declined on July 31, 1984. They filed Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1987 after obtaining special leave from the final Court and the same was allowed vide order dated January 5, 1987 and the orders of the Court dated February 9, 1994 dismissing the writ petition and order dated July 31, 1984 dismissing the review petition were set aside and the case was remanded to this Court for decision on merits. After remand, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition. The same was allowed and amended writ petition was filed. The respondents have filed written statement thereto resisting the writ petition. They have controverted the material averments made in the writ petition. The petitioners have filed their replication reiterating their stand in the writ petition.

it has been contended by Shri Gurbachan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Scheme approved by the Trust vide Resolution No. 28 dated March 24, 1976 was not submitted to the State Government under subsection (1) of Section 40 of the Act for sanction. Rather, an application was made to the State Government for sanction of a Scheme prepared in compliance with Resolution No. 66 dated May 7, 1979. Notices under Sections 36 and 38 of the Act relating to this Scheme were never issued or published. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that though notices under Section 36 were published inviting objections to the Scheme approved vide Resolution No. 28 dated March 24, 1976, yet notices under Section 38 were neither issued nor served on any of the petitioners.

In the written statement to the amended writ petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been averred that notices under Section 36 of the Act regarding the 475 acres Scheme known a DevelopmentcumHousing Accommodation Scheme approved by the Trust vide Resolution 28 passed in the meeting held on March 24, 1976, were issued. This very Scheme had been submitted to the State Government for sanction. Notices with regard thereto had been issued under subsection (3) of Section 40 of the Act and published in the daily Tribune on May 25, 1979 and June 1, 1979 and in Punjab Government Gazette of June 1, 1979 and June 8, 1979. This Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government. It is explained that Resolution No. 28 dated March 24, 1976 had been passed authorising,inter alia, issuing notification under Section 36, whereas Resolution No. 66 dated May 7, 1979 was passed for submission of the Scheme to the State Government for sanction. It was also averred that notices under Section 38 were served on the petitioners Baldev Singh, petitioner No. 1. had a joint holding with his three brothers, namely, Gurcharan Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Jaswant Singh, and notices were received by Sukhdev Singh on August 2, 1979 and he filed objections. Petitioner No. 2 Kartar Singh and Gurcharan Singh are joint owners of their land and the notices were served on Kartar Singh, petitioner. Similarly, petitioner No. 3 Sajjan Singh is joint owner of land with his brother Gajjan Singh and notices were received by him. Gurdial Singh, Jaswant and Sukhdev Singh have a joint khata with Sajjan Singh, petitioner No. 3 who had been served. In the same manner, petitioner No. 7 Harbhajan Singh is a coowner with Bahadur Singh and Hardev Singh. Hardev Singh had been served. Petitioner No. 8 Tara Singh had received notices. So also is the case with petitioner No. 9 Nahar Singh, Bikram Singh, petitioner No. 10 a joint ownerwith Kashmira Singh and Jora Singh. Kasmira Singh had recived notices. Gajja Singh, petitioner No. II is joint owner of land with Dalip Singh and Lashkar Singh and notices were reveived by them. Seetal Singh, petitioner No. 15: was joint owner with Nek Singh, petitioner No. 16, and Mohinder Singh and Mohinder Singh had been served with a notice. Notices were also sent to Dalip Singh, who had led objections under Section 38 of the Act. Though the averments had been made by the respondents regarding the identity of the Scheme approved vide Resolution No. 28 of March 24, 1976 and the Scheme submitted vide Resolution No. 66 of May 7, 1979 and the service of notices under Section 38 of the Act, yet in order to satisfy ourselves we had sent for the records of the Trust, which have been produced before us. A perusal thereof reveals that in the meeting held on March 24, 1976, the Trust passed Resolution No. 28 thereby approving the framing of the Scheme titled "192Hectares DevelopmentcumHousing Accommodation Scheme on the right side of Pakhowal Road beyond Sidhwan Canal at Ludhiana". The Chairman of Respondent No. 2 was authorised to issue necessary notices under Sections 36, 37 and 38 of the Act and take further necessary action. Notice under Section 36. dated June 21, 1976 inviting objections to the Scheme were published in the official gazette on various dates. Objections were submitted by certain landowners. 13 objectors appeared in person and they were given a hearing. Certain modifications were made in the Scheme. Fresh layout plan was prepared and sanctioned. Thereafter, the Trust passed Resolution No. 66 on May 7, 1979 taking a decision that the Scheme be submitted to the State Government for sanction under Section 41 of the Act and notices with regard thereto as contemplated by Section 40(3) of the Act be published. In the note submitted it is clearly mentioned that the notifications regarding this Scheme had been published on July 2. 1976 and the sanction of the State Government was required prior to July 1, 1979. There is nothing in the Resolution to indicate that a new Scheme had been prepared or approved by the Trust and the same was being submitted. In the letter sent by the Chairman of respondent No. 2 to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Local Government Development, dated May 19, 1979, sanction was sought for the Scheme titled "475Acres DevelopmentcumHousing Accommodation Scheme on the right side of Pakhowal Road beyond Sidhwan Canal at Ludhiana". It is clearly mentioned in para 2 of the letter that the above cited Scheme was framed by the Trust vide Resolution No. 28 dated March 24, 1976.

From the pleadings of the parties and the record of the Trust referred to above, it is crystal clear that it was the same Scheme which had, been approved by the Trust on March 24, 1976 and which had been submitted to the State Government for sanction under Section 41 of the Act in pursuance of Resolution No. 66 dated May 1, 1979. No fresh Scheme was prepared or approved by Resolution No. 66 ibid. There is no doubt about the identity of the Scheme. The petitioners seem to be labouring under some misconception. There is no merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is equally untenable. As noticed earlier, notices under Section 38 of the Act were issued and served on the petitioners. Where there were more than one cosharer of the acquired land, notices had been served on at least one of the cosharers. The averments made by the respondents regarding the service of notices under Section 38 of the Act are fully borne out by the record on the file. Along with a letter dated May 19, 1979 submitted for the sanction of the Scheme, amongst others, is appended a synopsis of the objections filed by various landowners. We find therefrom that Sarvshri Gurcharan Singh, Baldev Singh. Sukdev Singh and Jasmal Singh, petitioners No. 4, 1, 5 and 6 respectively had filed objections and their objections were considered. We have perused the summons issued by the Trust and find that petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 15 & 16 had been served with notices. Sukhdev Singh. petitioner No. 5 had been served on behalf of petitioners No. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Bikram Singh, petitioner No. 10, had been served through his brother Kashmira Singh, who was a cosharer with him in the land in dispute. All these petitioners had falsely averred that they had not been served. The notices bear the signatures or thumb impressions of the persons served.

It was then argued by S. Gurcharan Singh that notices should have been served individually on the petitioners and service of notices on one of the cosharers was not sufficient service on the remaining cosharers. This submission flies in the face of Section 79 of the Act. Section 79, so far as it is relevant for our propose, reads as under:

"79. Service of notice. (i).....

(2) When a notice required or permitted under this Act to be served upon an owner or occupier therein, and the service thereof in cases not otherwise specially provided for in this Act, shall be be effected either

(a) by giving or tendering the notice, or sending it by post, to the owner or occupier or if there be more owners or occupiers than one, to any one of them, or (b) ........".

It is thus apparent that if there are more owners than one, service of notice on any one of them is sufficient service for all the coowners.

Though the publication under Section 42 of the Act is a conclusive evidence of the fact that the Scheme had been duly framed, and sanctioned, we had examined the records of the Trust to satisfy ourselves as to whether the petitioners had been validly served or not. We are fully satisfied that the petitioners had been legally and validly served notices under section 38 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this very Scheme had been quashed by a Division Bench or this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3056 of 1982 (Sunder Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another), decided on November 26, 1984. So, this writ petition should succeed on, that score also.

We have perused the judgment in that case and find that the Bench. had come to the conclusion that notice under Section 36 had been prepared on June 21, 1976 and the Scheme had been finally sanctioned on June 28, 1979. i.e. beyond three years of the notice. This conclusion was based on the concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. They had stated that they were unable to support the impugned notification. So this case is no precedent, because here the learned counsel for the respondents have not conceded the case of the petitioners and the respondents have established that the notices under Section 36 of the Act had been published on July 2, 1976 and the Scheme had been sanctioned by the State Government and a notification had been issued on June 28, 1979.

Mr. Gurbachan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, faintly raised a contention that the land in dispute was not needed by the Trust The Trust had controverted this plea. Even otherewise, it is a well known fact that Ludhiana Town has been expanding at a very fast rate. The land comprised in the Scheme (except for those portions which are subjectmatter of the writ petitions and in relation to which the stay orders have been issued by the Courts) has been developed for the purposes of expansion.

It was urged that the whole exercise was gone into just to peg down the prices. The proceedings were a colourable exercise of powers vested in the authorities. In fact, the land was not required by the Trust. The Trust had passed the Resolution No. 28 on March 24, 1976 and the award in the case was pronounced in 1981, after a period of about five years. Strong reliance was placed on the ratio of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Radhey Sham Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1982 PLJ 349. We are not impressed with this submission. Under the Land Acquisition Act as it stood at the relevant time, the authorities could issue notifications under Section 6 within three years of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of that Act. The provisions of Section 36 of the Act are analongous to the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and provisions of Section 42 of the Act are similar to the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 36 of the Act was published on July 2, 1976. Notification under Section 42 could. legally and validly be issued uptil February 1, 1979. No grievance can be made of this span of time. The acquisition proceedings have been completed within two years of the notification under Section 42 even according to the averments of the petitioners. A large tract of land situated in three different revenue estates and owned by numerous landowners was sought to be acquired. In the very nature of things it takes a long time to serve all. It the affected persons. Some of the landowners had challenged the Scheme and had filed proceedings in various Courts. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the authorities are guilty of any undue procrastination. Furthermore, the ratio of Radhey Sham Gupta''s case (supra) has not been approved by the final Court in Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1986 (Improvement Trust, Pathankot v. Shri Kesar Singh and others), decided on March 12, 1987 and the decisions of this Court allowing the writ petitions mainly on the basis of the ratio of the decision in Radhey Sham Gupta''s case were set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed. It was observed:

"In these cases the notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (which corresponds to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) was published on 1161971 and the notification under Section 42 of the Act (which corresponds to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act) was published on 31101973. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 261976. After he decision in Radhey Sham Gupta and, others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1982 P&H 519 (which we do not approve) and the decision in Arnolak Singh''s case, 1982 PLJ 428 (which, we do not approve) the respondents filed writ petitions in 1983 questioning the notifications and the award nearly seven years after award had been passed. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court without taking into consideration that they were hopelessly, belated writ petitions but relying upon the two decisions referred to above. In Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1986 the writ petition was first allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and his order had been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. In Civil Appeal No. 891 and 892 of 1986 the Division Bench has allowed the writ petitions. These appeals by special leave are filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

We are of the view that the High Court should have dismissed these writ petitions on the ground of laches. Even on merits we find that there was no substance in the writ petitions. We, therefore, set aside the judgments of High Court in all these cases and dismiss the writ petitions filed before the High Court."

In view of the clear pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court disapproving the ratio of Radhey Sham Gupta''s case, the submission of S. Gurbachan Singh regarding delay in competion of acquisition proceeding''s cannot prevail and is repelled.

Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3285 and 3396 of 1986 and 3124 of 1987 are liable to be dismissed on the additional ground that they suffer from laches. They seek the quashing of the Scheme finally sanctioned in 1979 and the acquisition proceedings completed in 1981 through writ petitions filed in 1986 and 1987 after a lapse of about seven years. There is no cogent explanation for the delay in approaching this Court. In exactly similar circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed in Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1986 (Improvement Trust, Pathankot v. Shri Kesar Singh and others) :

"We are of the view that the High Court should have dismissed these writ petitions on the ground of laches."

In one of the cases before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, notification under Section 36 of the Act had been issued. in 1971 and under Section 42 in 1973. The writ petitions had been filed in 1976. Even then, those were dismissed on the ground of laches.

In the written statement, it has been pleaded that the Trust has already spent about rupees one hundred crores in acquiring and developing the land under the Scheme. It had carved out and allotted the plots to hundreds of persons. This is an additional ground to decline the relief to the petitioners.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in these writ petitions and dismiss the same but with no order as to costs.

Petitions dismissed.