IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MOGA ETC.versusMANCHANDA SOAP WORKS AND ORS.

A                   IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MOGA ETC.
                                          v.
                   MANCHANDA SOAP WORKS AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 16, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

           Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 :

          Sections 26, 27, 36, 38, 40, 78, 7<J-Tntck Schem.:-Initiation of-Ac-
C   qubing of land-Procedures followed-Held, if Legislature intends that eve11
    for non-residential schen1es, establislunent of re-housing schenze is a condi-
    tion precedent no non-residential sche111e can be bnplen1ented until the
    residential schenie is fully put in operation-For fra1ning residential schenze,
    acquiring land and const1uction would take yea1>-From pragmatic point of
    view, for acquisition of land to effectuate non- residential sche1nes, it is not
D   mandatory that re-housi11g of the residential scheme should be first initiated,
    implemented and then non-residential Scheme would be taken up.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991
    Etc.

E        From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.88 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1804 of 1986

          D.V. Sehgal and A.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Mukul Mudgal,
    Revindra Barra, S. Batra, G. Bindra, Ashok K. Mahajan and Ranbir Yadav
    for the appearing parties.
F
           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of a Division
    Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made on October 3, 1988 in
G   CWP No. 1809 of 1986. The fact fairly are not in dispute.

          The appellant had initiated a truck scheme under Section 36 of the
    Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
    which was duly published in daily Tribune on January 10, 17 and 24, 1975
    for acquiring an extent of 15.5 acres of land in Moga for diversion of the
H   trucks from passing through Moga Town and stationing them at the
                                        402
        IMPROVEMENTTRUSTv. MANCHANDASOAPWORKS                         403

proposed New Mandi Market. Objections had been invited under Section A
38 by public notice dated January 24, 1975. Objections were filed on March
25, 1975. After framing the Scheme, a layout plan was prepared for
inspection by the affected persons. Fresh notice was published in the daily
tribune on May 13, 20 and 27, 1975. It was also published in local daily by
name 'Ajit' on May 11, 18 and 25, 1975. After the Government's approval B
was received, it wa' published in the same manner on May 23 and 30, 1975
and June 6, 1975 respectively. The individual notices were issued to all the
persons under Section 38 inviting objections to the Scheme Since the Trust
had decided to take over possession of the aforesaid property. Notices
were, in fact, sent to the respondents by registered post with acknow- C
ledgement due on June 11, 1975. Notices were serviced on June 12, 1975
and objections came to be filed by the respondents on August 8, 1975.
After receipt of objections and consideration thereof, notices in the daily
Tribunes and also Ajit Calling upon the owners to appear before the
Conni:rittee, were published on August 20, 1975 fixing the date of hearing
as August 25, 1975. It was stated as under :                                 D
        "It is for the information of general public and in particular the
        owners of the area falling in-

        (i) Scheme No. 1 regarding the land near Thana Sadar, Moga.
                                                                             E
        (ii) Scheme No. 3 regarding the land between the D.B. Rest House
        and the New Grain market under construction.

        That tbey will be heard in person in the office of the undersigned
        on 25.8.75 at 3.00 p.m. in respect of the above schemes.
                                                                             F
                                                          Sd/-
                                                  [Gurdeep Singh]
                                                     Chairman
                                              Improvement Trust, Moga. 11

      It would appear that the respondents did not appear on the said date G
at about 3.00 p.m. fixed for August 25, 1975. Accordingly, in the meeting
held on the aforesaid date it was decided to forward the scheme for the
approval of the Government under Section 40 of the Act. After receipt of
the approval from the Government of the Scheme under Section 40 (3) of
the Act, notices were published on October 2 and October 9, 1975 respec- H
    404                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A lively. Public notices also were published in the local vernacular daily news
    paper, viz., Ajit, on October 5 and 10, 1975 respectively. Government
    notification was published on October 2, 1975 and October 10, 1975.
    Notification, as required under Section 41 (1) of the Act, was also publish-
    ed in the Government Gazette dated 26th December, 1975 regarding the
    sanction of the scheme. It would thus be clear that the procedure
B
    prescribed under the Act had been followed in letter and spirit of the
    provisions of Section 40 of the Act.

         Procedure for publication has been provided in Sections 78 and 79
    which read as under :
c            "78. Method of giving public notice. - Subject to the provisions of
             this Act, every public notice required under this Act shall be
             deemed to have been duly given if it is published in some local
             newspaper (if any) and pasted upon a notice-board to be exhibited
             for public information at the building in which the meetings of the
D            trust are ordinarily held.

             79. Service of notice. - (1) Every notice other than a Public notice,
             and every bill, issued under this Act shall, unless it is under this
             Act otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented -

E            (a) by giving or tendering the registered notice or bill, or sending
             it by registered post, to the person to whom it is addressed, or

             (b) if such person cannot be found, then by leaving the notice or
             bill at his last known place of abode, if within municipal limits, or
             by giving or tendering it to some adult male member or servant of
F            his family, ordinarily residing with him or by causing it to be affixed
             on some conspicuous part of the building or land (if any) to which
             it relates.

             (2) When a notice is required or permitted under this Act to be
             served upon an owner or occupier, as the case may be, of a building
G
             or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier
             therein, and the service thereof in cases not otherwise specially
             provided for in this Act shall be effect either -

             (a) by giving or tendering the notice, or sending it by post, to the
H            owner or occupier, or if there be more owners or occupiers than
        IMPROVEMENTTRUSTv. MANCHANDASOAPWORKS                          405

        one, to any one of them, or                                          A
        {b) if such owner or occupier cannot be found, then by giving or
        tendering the notice to an adult male member or servant of his
        family ordinarily residing with him or by causing the notice to be
        affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which
        it relates.                                                          B

        (3) Whenever the person on whom a notice or bill is to be served
        is a minor, service upon his guardian" or upon an adnlt male
        member or servant of his family ordinarily residing with him shall
        be deemed to be service upon the minor."                             c
       A reading of the Sections would clearly indicate that the statute
requires general publication. The publication in that behalf in the
newspaper and Gazette is mandatory requirement. On the facts of this
case, they were, in fact, published in the newspapers. Therefore, the Act
did not provide for any individual notice or personal hearing under Section D
79 of !he Act read with Sections 36 and 38 of the Act. In consequence, the
objections are not required to be served with personal notice. Notice in the
newspaper, as required under the Act, was intended to be sufficient notice
for the objectors. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion
that the respondents could not have read and had not read the newspapers. E
That reason is obviously fallacious. Once the statute requires publication
of notification in the newspaper, that is the sufficient compliance. It
presumes that the intending objectors are put on notice of the hearing and
it is for them to appear and if they fail to appear they 0nnot make any
grievance of non-issuance of personal notice which statute does not require
to be served.                                                                 F

      Mr. D.V. Sehgal, learned senior counsel for the respondents, and Mr.
Mukul Mudgal, leaned counsel for the appellant in the connected appeals,
contended that unless re-housing schemes as enjoined under Sections 26
and 27 of the Act are framed and executed, the respondents cannot be
dispossessed from the properties in their possession. It woilJd be seen from G
their own averments that they have the composite buildings, namely, factory
and residential houses. We need not go into the controversy whether the
factory and houses have been constructed in accordance with the proce-
dure prescribed under the law. Suffice it to state that there exist a factory
and composite residential premises in the factory. The main thrust of the H
    406                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP.) S.C.R.

A argument of Shri Sehgal is that unless a re-housing scheme is framed and
    implemented, the truck scheme, in other words non-residential Scheme,
    cannot be put in operation. We do not find force in the contention. A
    reading of Sections 26 and 27 would indicate that wherever a scheme for
    housing is said to be established, the displaced house-owners are required
    to be re-housed under the scheme. If the legislature intends that even for
B
    non-residential schemes, establishment of the re-housing scheme is a
    condition precedent, it would appear that no non-residential scheme can
    be implemented until the residential scheme is fully put in operation. It is
    common knowledge that for framing a residential scheme, acquiring the
    land and construction would take years. In the meanwhile, the non-residen-
c   tial scheme would be rendered ineffective. Under those circumstances,
    considered from the pragmatic point of view, it must be held that for
    acquisition of the land to effectuate non-residential scheme, it is not
    mandatory that re-housing of the residential scheme should be first in-
    itiated, implemented and then non-residential scheme would be taken up.
D   Considered from this perspective, we do not think that there was any
    justification for the High Court to interfere with the conclusion.

          It would be seen that an award had already been passed and amount
    was deposited. Except the respondents, all others have surrendered pos-
    session of the land. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the
E   respondents submitted a detailed report regarding the proposed scheme
    and also existence of the factories of the respondents. On a perusal thereof,
    any direction to exclude the factories in which the respondents have set up
    would create innumerable difficulties frustrating the scheme and day to day
    complications. Under these circumstances, it would be difficult for this
    Court to give any such direction. It is now contended that since respon-
F   dents have been residing in those places, re-housing would also be provided
    to them. It would be open to the respondents to make an application to
    the appellants and the appellants have to consider and dispose of the
    application in accordance with the rules after giving notice of hearing to
    them. The respondents are given six months' time from today to deliver
G    possession on filing their usual undertaking within four weeks from today.

          The main appeal of the Trust is allowed. The appeals filed by the
     claimants are dismissed. No costs.


     G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.