PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                    PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT TRUST                                    A
                                 v.
                      STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                OCTOBER 10, 1990

                    [B.C. RAY AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.)                             B

            Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922: Sections 24, 28, 36.
      38 and IO I-Acquisition of lan.ds Individual notice;~Service on
      affected persons-Necessity of-Notification in Government Gazette-
      Non-pub/ication of before the last date for filing objections-Whether
      renders the publication of entire scheme illegal and bad.
                                                                                  c
            The appellant Trust prepared a development scheme under the
      provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 covering
      certain lands including that of the respondents. Notice inviting objec-
      tions was published in a daily Newspaper on 9th, 16th and 23rd April,
      1976. It was also published in the Punjab Government Gazette on the         D
      7th, 14th and 21st May, 1976. The last date for r.ting objections was 5th
      May ,-1976. Notices were also served on each person whose land was to
      be ac9uired in accordance with Section 36 of the Act. After completion of
      the acquisition formalities, notification under section 42 of the Act was
      published on 26th March, 1979.
                                                                                  E
             Respondent No.. 2 and others challenged the scheme notified
      under the Act by way of Writ Petitions on the ground that they could
      not file objections by 5th May, 1976 since the notification was published
      in the Gazette only thereafter. The High Court allowed the Writ Peti-
      tions and quashed the notification sanctioning the scheme, However, it
      observed that the appellant may publish the scheme again either             F
      amended or unamended under section 36 of the Act and proceed further
·i    in accordance with law. Against the said order, Letters Patent Appeals
      were filed, which were dismissed by the Division Bench. Appellant has
      preferred these appeals by special leave.

              On behalf of the appellant, it was mainly contended that infir-     G
        mity, if any, stemming from the non-consideration of the objections and
        the sanction of the scheme by the Government in ignorance of the fact
        stood cured by the provisions of S. 42(2) of the Act. It was also con-
      . tended that since Respondent No. 2 and others had rited objections in
        response to individual notices, they are debarred from raising objec-
        tions against the proposed improvement scheme.                            H
 ,•
                                          227
    228         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

         On behalf of Respondents it was inter alia contended that due to
A
    non-publication of the scheme in the Government Gazette before the
    expiry of the period of filing objections against the proposed scheme,
    the valuable right of the respondents to file objections against the
    scheme has been done away with, contrary to the mandatory provision
    contained in section 36 of the Act.
B
          Allowing the appeals, this Court,

          HELD: 1. It is incomprehensible to say that non-observance of
    provisions of Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act,
    1922 by not publishing the notification in the Government Gazette
    before the expiry of the date for filing the objections renders the publi-
c   cation of the entire development scheme illegal and bad. [234A]

          2. The legislative intent of provision of section 36 read with
    section 38 of the Act is to afford reasonable opprotunity to the owners
    and occupiers affected by the proposed scheme to file objections not
D   only against the scheme but also against the acquisition of their lands
    falling within the scheme and to achieve this purpose not only notifica-      ~·
    tions in the Government gazette and newspaper are to be published but
    also individual notices on each of the person affected are to be served
    with details of the plots of land falling within the scheme and proposed
    to be acquired with a view to giving them adequate opportunity to file
E   objections both against the scheme as well as against the proposed
    acquisition of their lands. [233G-H]

           3. In the instant case, the development scheme was prepared by
    the appellant-Trust, and was notified in accordance with the provisions
    of Section 36 of the Act. In so far as the publication of the scheme in the
F   newspaper 'Tribune' in three consecutive weeks in April, 1976 inviting
    objections thereto till Sth May, 1976 is quite in accordance with the
    provisions of the said section. The Gazette Notification published in
    three consecutive weeks was however, made after expiry of the period
    of filing objections against this scheme. Admittedly individual notices
    under section 38 of the said Act were duly served on all the owners and
G   occupiers of the land falling within the said scheme and purported to be
    acquired and respondent No. 2 and others admittedly fded objections
    against the proposed acquisition of their land. The said objections were
    duly considered after hearing the respondent NO. 2 and others and
    notice was issued sanctioning the scheme by the State Government. In
    these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No. 2         \.
H   and others to challenge the scheme on the mere plea that the Gazette
    Notification was not duly published. [233C-F]
    PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT v. STATE OF PUNJAB [RAY, J.]                    229

          Prof Jodh Singh & Ors. v. Ju/lundur Improvement Trust,
                                                                                A
    Jullundur and Ors., AIR 1984 Punjab 398, distinguished.

          [This Court set aside the decision of the Single Judge as well as
    that of the Division. Bench of the High Court.] [234D]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.                        B
    5036-39 of 1989.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1984 of the Punjab
    and Haryana High•Court in L.P.A. Nos. 696, 695, 694 and 697 of 1982.

        G.L. Sanghi, Dhruv Mehta (NP), Aman Vachher and S.K.
    Mehta for the Appellant.
                                                                                c

         V.C. Mahajan, Tapash Ray, A. Minocha, K.R. Nagaraja and
    R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            D

i        RAY, J. These appeals on special leave are directed against the
    judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
    Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal Nos: 694 to 697 of 1982
    dismissing the appeals with costs. The salient facts out of which these
    appeals have arisen, are as follows:                                        E

          The appellant Trust prepared a development scheme under sec-
    tion 24 read with section 28 of the. Punjab Town Improvement Trust
    Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to an area of
    about 60 acres of land at Palani Road. The lands of the respondents
    fell within the said area. On April 9, 1976 a notice under Section 36 of    F
    the Act was published in daily Tribune inviting objections till 5th
    May, 1976. This notice was published in the.three consecutive weeks of
    the said newspaper dated 9th April, 15th April and 23rd April, 1976.
    The very notice of the said scheme was also published under section 36
    of the said Act in the Punjab Government Gazette on three consecu-
~   live weeks i.e, 7th May, 14th May and 21st May, 1976 inviting objec-        G
    tions till May 5, 1976 against the scheme framed. In accordance with
    the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act the Trust also served notice
    on every person who was occupier or owner of any immoveable pro-
    perty falling within the area proposed to be acquired in executing the
    scheme within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice under
    section 36, in order to enable the owners and occupiers of such pre-        H
    230         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

  mises to file objections to such acquisition and to state their reasonings
A
  in writing within a period of 60 days of service of the notice. After
  completion of the acquisition formalities, a notification under section
  42 of the said Act was published on March 26, 1979. The respondent
  No. 2 and ors. assailed the appellant's scheme notified under the Act
  in CWP No. 2561 of 1979 and CWP Nos. 4075, 36.15," 3654 of 1981 on
B the ground that they could not file objections against the scheme
  in terms of Section 36 of the Act till 5th May~ 1976 as the notification
  was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 7th May, 14th
  May and 21st May, 1976. These writ petitions were allowed by order
  dated 25th February, 1982 and the sanctioned scheme notified under
  section 42 of the Act was quashed. It was also mentioned in the said
  order that the appellant may, hOwever, publish the scheme again either
c amended or unamended under section 36 of the said Act and proceed
  further in the matter in accordance with Jaw. It is against this order the
  LP.A. No. 694 to 697 of 1982 were filed. The Division Bench of the
  High Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned single
  Judge and held that the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Act
D were mandatory and as it had not been complied with in the present
  cases, the. illegality of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions
  contained in Section 36 would not stand cured under Section JOI (l)(d)       t
  of the Act. Hence the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed.

         Against' this judgment and order the instant appeals on special
E leave have been filed in this Court. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel
  appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and ors. has very strenu-
  ously contended that the provisions of Section 36 of the said Act are
  mandatory inasmuch as it provides for publication of the notice as to
  the framing of the scheme under the Act in three consecutive weeks in
  the official Gazette as well as in the newspaper with a statement invit-
F ing objections. Though the notice was duly published in the newspaper
  'Tribune' for three consecutive weeks on 9th, 16th and 23rd April,
  1976 notifying the date for filing objections till 5th May, 1976 yet the
  notification that was published in the Punjab Government Gazette for
  three consecutive weeks was admittedly after the expiry of period of
  filing objections i.e. 5th May, 1976. It has, therefore, been contended
G by Mr. Mahajan that due to non-publication of the scheme in the
  Government Gazette before the expiry of the period of filing objec-
  tions against the proposed scheme, the valuable right of the respon-
  dents to file objections against the scheme has been done away with.
  As such the publication of the scheme was rightly quashed by the courts
  below as this mandatory requirement had not been complied with by
H the State. In this connection, he has referred to the case of Prof. Jodh
 PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT v. STATE OF PUNJAB [RAY, J.]                     231

 Singh & Ors. v. Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur and Ors.,
                                                                             A
 AIR 1984 Punjab 398. This case was decide_d by the full bench of the
 High Court of Punjab and Haryana as to whether issuance of a notifi-
 cation under sub-section (!) of Section 42 of the Punjab Town Im-
 provement Act, 1922, would bar a challenge to the validity of ihe
 scheme or the governmental sanction thereto for any reason including
 the reason that the scheme had been framed and sanctioned without           B
 compliance of the mandatory provisions particularly those of Sections
 36, 38 and 5ub-section ( 1) of Section 40 bf the Act. It was held that:

             "Since the given provisions do not merely provide for ihe
             framing of the scheme simpliciter but also provide for
             acquisition of property to enable the execution of the
             scheme and since no person can be deprived of his property      c
             without being heard and one cannot ask for hearing unless
             he knows that he is being deprived of his property, so, by
             necessary implication a notice of the intention of the
             authorities of acquiring a given person's property is imp-
             liedly necessary to enable him to bring to the notice of the    D
         _." concerned authority his objections against the·acquisition
             of his property. Hence such ,provisions as provide for
             notice, raising of objections and personal hearing in sup-
             port of the objection would be mandatory in character."

        In that case a notice under section 38 of the Act was issued on the E
  petitioner who submitted objections in time. In the return filed on
  behaff of the Trust it was admitted that due to over-sight, the petitio-
  ners could not be called for hearing along with other objectors as the
 ·objections filed by the petitioners had inadvertently got placed in some
  other file and that for the same reason their objections were neither
. considered by the Trust nor forwarded to the State Government along F
  with the summary of the objections submitted at the time of sanction
  for the said scheme-. It was contended on behalf of the Trust that lhe
  infirmity, if any, stemming from the non-consideration by the Trust of
  the objections filed by the petitioners and sanction of the scheme by
  the Government in ignorance of the said fact stood cured by the provi-
  sions of sub-section (2) of Sec_!ion 42 of the Act. It was in that context .G
  the above observation was made by the full bench.

       Mr. Mahajan next contended Jhat-thOugh admittedly notices
 under section 33 of the said Act were issued on the respondent No. 2
 and others who are either owners or occupiers of the lands falling
 within the improvement scheme of the appellant-and the respondent           H
    232         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    No. 2 and others had filed objections against the proposed acquisition
A
    of their lands, yet on the basis of the said individual notices issued
    under section 38 of the said Act, the respondent No. 2 and others are
    debarred from raising objections against the proposed improvement
    scheme. It is further submitted that under Section 38 the owners and
    occupiers of the land affected by the said scheme may merely object to
B   the proposed acquisition of their lands but they cannot file objections
    against the scheme published. The respondent No. 2 and others are
    therefore, deprived of their right to file objections against the scheme
    as provided in Section 36 of the said Act and so in view of the non-
    compliance of the provisions of Section 36 of the said Act by the State
    Government, the development scheme cannot be enforced merely be-
    cause the State Government notified the sanction of the scheme under
c   section 42 of the Act.

           The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the
     other hand, contended that in compliance of the provisions of Section
     36 of the said Act a notice regarding the framing of the development
D    scheme was published in the newspaper 'Tribune' for three consecu-
     tive weeks i.e. on 9th, 16th and 23rd April, 1976 inviting objections till
     6th May, 1976. It is only in the Punjab Government Gazette that the
     notification was published on 7th, 14th and 21st May, 1976 inviting
     objections till 5th May, 1976 i.e. the notification was made in the
    ·Punjab Government Gazette after the period for filing objections had
E    expired. It has also been contended that individual notices under sec-
     tion 38 of the said Act were served on the owners and occupiers of the
     immovable property falling under the development scheme intimating
     them about the acquisition of the land with particulars of the lands
     falling within the said scheme and inviting their objections to be filed
     within a period of 60 days from the date of service of the notice. It has
F    also been submitted that the respondent No. 2 and others i.e. the
     owners of the lands duly submitted their objections against the acqui.si-
     tion of·\he land as well as against the proposed scheme and the same
     were· hdard and considered by the prescribed authority. After the
     hearing of the objections, a notification was made by the Stat~
     Government sanctioning the said scheme and also that this Trust shall
G    proceed forthwith to execute the said scheme. It has, therefore, been
     submitted that in these circumstances, the objections raised by the
     counsel for the respondent No. 2 and others are wholly unsustainable
     being devoid of any merit.

           It is convenient to mention herein that the award determining
H    the compensation was passed in 1980 and the compensation to the tune
PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT v. STATE OF PUNJAB [RAY, J.]                  233

of Rs.32 lakhs had already been paid. A sum of Rs.2,30,465.08 had
                                                                          A
 been spent for the construction of roads and foot paths. Another sum
of Rs.1,12,217.24 had been spent for lighting of the streets. Another
sum of Rs.3 Iakhs had been paid to the Punjab Water Supply and
Sewerage Board for sewerage purposes. Thus, a sum of Rs.38,42,682.35
 had already been spent for implementation of the scheme. Severa)
plots had already been sold in open auction. The reference under · B
section 18 of the Act is also pending. In this context we are to consider
the contention raised by the learned counsels for the respondent No. 2
and others. Under section 24 and 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement
Act, 1922, the impugned development scheme was prepared by the
appellant-Trust. The scheme was notified as has been referred herein-
before in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. In so
far as the publication of the scheme in the newspaper 'Tribune' in c
three consecutive weeks in April, 1976 inviting objections thereto till
5th May, 1976 is quite in accordance with the provisions of the said
section. The Gazette Notification published in th.ree consecutive
weeks was however, made after expiry· of the period of filing objections
against this scheme. This has been the bone of contention on behalf of D
the respondent No. 2 and others that this resulted in violation of the
provisions of section 36 oT the Act .~-·their right to file. objections
against the scheme was set ai naught. This contention in our consi-
dered opinion is totally devoid of merit inasmuch as admittedly indi-
vidual notices under section 38 of the said Act were duly served on all
the owners and occupiers of the land falling within the said scheme and E
purported to be acquired and the respondent No. 2 and others admit-
tedly filed objections against the proposed acquisition of their land.
The said objections were duly considered after hearing the respondent
No. 2 and others and notice was issued sanctioning the scheme by the
State Government. In these circumstances, it. does not lie in the mouth
of respondent No. 2 and others to challenge the scheme on the .mere F
plea that the Gazette Notification was not duly published. The legisla-.
tive intent of provision of section 36 read with section 38 of the said
Act is to afford reasonable opportunity to the owners and occupiers
affected by the proposed scheme to file objections not only against the.
scheme but also against the acquisition of their lands falling withh1 the
scheme and to achieve this purpose not only notifications in the G
Government Gazette and newspaper are to be published but also:lndi-
vidual notices on each of the person affected are to be served .with
details of the plots of land falling within the scheme and proposed to
be acquired with a view to giving them adequate opportunity to file
objectiOns both against the scheme as well as against the proposed
acquisition of their lands. It is, therefore, incomprehensible to contend H
    234        SUPREME COURT REK>RTS                [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   that non-observance of provisions of Section 36 of the said Act by not
    publishing the notification in the Government Gazette before the
    expiry of the date for filing the objections renders the publication of
    the entire development scheme illegal and bad. The above contention,
    in our considered opinion, is not at all sustainable on the simple
    ground thaLthe respondent No. 2 and others were duly served with the
B   notices under section 38 and they pursuant to that notice duly filed
    their objections against the acquisition as well as the scheme. The
    decision of the full bench reported in Prof. Jodh Singh and Ors. v.
    Jul/undur Improvement Trust, Jul/undur & Ors. (supra) is not applic-
    able to this case inasmuch as in that case the objections filed under
    section 38 of the said Act having been misplaced were not at all con-
c   sidered and thereafter the Government issued a notification under
    section 42 of the said Act giving sanction to the scheme itself. In that
    view of the matter, the said decision has no application to the instant
    case.

           In these circumstances, considering from all aspects we hold that
D   the decision of the courts below is wholly untenable in law and as such
    they are liable to be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the decision of
    the learned single Judge as well as to the Division Bench of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana and allow the appeal setting aside the
    orders of the courts below. There will, however, be no order as. to
    costs.

    G.N.                                                    Appeals allowd.