Harbhajan Singh and Another vs The Improvement Trust and Another

H.S. Bedi, J.—The present petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application for ad-interim injunction.

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed stating that they being owners in possession of the suit land as the successors of one Jawala Singh could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The stand of the respondent-Trust was that after Notification dated April 6, 1976, issued u/s 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter, called as ''the Act''), no objections have been filed by Jawala Singh himself, although he was alive at that time, and that the petitioners who were only the heirs of Jawala Singh had no locus standi to claim any relief from the Court. This stand was negatived by the Courts below and it was held that the petitioners had become the owners of the property in question by virtue of a decree dated December 15, 1972 and not by succession after the death of Jawala Singh on May 8, 1976. On merits, however, the Courts found that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit land as they had been dispossessed way back on April 5, 1980 and having accepted a substantial amount of compensation with respect to the disputed land, they were not entitled to maintain the present suit. It was also held that on the notice issued to Jawala Singh the petitioner had stated that they wanted Rs. 2,000/- per marla as compensation and as such had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

Mr. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made a two fold argument ; firstly, that a notice u/s 38 of the Act which was imperative in terms was required to be served on the petitioners as owners of the land and in possession thereof was not issued and secondly, that the possession of the disputed land not having been taken within one year from the date of notification, the entire acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed. For the first proposition, reliance has been placed on Prof. Jodh Singh v. Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur 1985 88 P. L. R. 308 and for the second on Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab 1988 93 P. L. R. 575..

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the petition. The Courts below found that notices No. 209, 233, 288 and 259 were received by the petitioners and they did not object to the scheme but demanded that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per marla should be paid to them for the property acquired. The petitioner Harbhajan Singh received Rs. 4,90,000/- and Harbhajan Kaur also received Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation and this amount had been received by them after the decision had been taken by the competent authority on the objections filed. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the acquisition on the ground that notice u/s 38 of the Act had not been served personally on them. The reliance on Prof. Jodh Singh''s case (supra) cited by the learned counsel is also mis-conceived. In this case, a notice u/s 38 of the Act was served on the land owners and objections were filed but due to some confusion in the office of the Improvement Trust, these objections could not be forwarded to the State Government for consideration. It was in that situation that compliance with the provisions of Sections 36, 38 and 40 of the Act, were held to be mandatory. In the case in hand, I find that though the notices were admittedly not issued to the petitioners, they nevertheless suffered no prejudice as they had knowledge of the proceeding but choose to accept the compensation that had been offered to them without demur as on the notice that was actually received though in the name of Jawala Singh, they stated that they be given compensation at Rs. 2,000/- per marla but did not choose to file any other objections.

The stand of the respondents that the possession was taken on April 5, 1980, seems to have been endorsed by the fact that the petitioners have accepted the compensation that had been determined Mr. Bajwa''s reliance on the latest Khasra girdawri which he has produced in the Court becomes meaningless in the above circumstances It is to be noted that no value can be attached to the Khasra girdawri as it does not have a presumption of truth.

The reliance on Iqbal Singh''s case (supra) in furtherance of the second argument addressed by Mr. Bajwa too is of no avail It is to be noted that the argument that the proceedings were liable to elapse as the possession of the acquired land had not been taken within one year, was never put up as a case either before the trial Court or the Appellate Court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is not merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.