Mahant Narbada Nath and others vs State of Punjab and another

I.S. Tiwana, J.(Oral)

The petitioners impugn Development Scheme No. 162, framed by the respondentTrust, on a variety of grounds, such as:

(i) Approximately 3.66 acres of land owned by Takiya Zahira Peer, cannot be acquired, it being a property belonging to a religious institution;

(ii) no housing scheme has been framed before the ousting of the occupants of the acquired property; and

(iii) the petitioners and all other objectors to the scheme have not been heard and thus the provisions of section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, stand violated.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find no merit in this petition.

So far as the first contention is concerned, neither any document has been brought on record to show the extent of the property owned by Takiya Zahira Peer nor is the learned counsel for the petitioners in a position to refer to any legal provisions which disentitles the respondentauthorities to acquire the property belonging to a religious institution. As against this the stand of the respondentTrust in the written statement is that Takiya Zahira Peer as a matter of fact does not own any property and whatever is claimed to be standing in the name of the Takiya, vests in the Punjab Wakf Board. Besides this it has been averred on behalf of the Trust that as per the scheme under challenge an area equal to .05 acres has been left out from acquisition and this Takiya has been adjusted in the scheme itself. In the face of this specific averment made on behalf of the respondentTrust there is hardly any scope for the petitioners to raise the above noted argument. Above all this, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, I cannot possibly go into the question as to whether the above noted Takiya is a religious institution. (See Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments, Hyderabad and another, AIR 1976 SC 475).

As regards the contention at No. (ii) above, the stand of Trust is that they are not bound to frame a rehousing scheme as per the terms of section 26 of the Act. This is more so when the petitioners nowhere urge that they are resident houseowners and are likely to be displaced by the execution of the impugned scheme. As per the averments made in the petition it is the specific stand of these petitioners that they are either tenants or lessees of certain premises which are going to be covered by the above noted scheme. In view of the provisions of section 27 of the Act I find that the petitioners not being `resident houseowners'' cannot possibly insist upon the prior framing of a rehousing scheme. (See M/s. Piara Singh Uttam Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1974 PLJ 260.

So far as the third objection raised on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, I find no substance in the same in view of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 42 of the Act. As per this subsection a notification issued under subsection (1) of this section in respect of any scheme shall be the conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. A decision of this Court in Smt. Harginder Kaur and another v. The State of Punjab and another, 1983 PLJ 63, can be referred to with advantage so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned.

Thus for the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.