PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 10-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·i 
,• 
PHAGWARA IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 1990 
[B.C. RAY AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
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. 
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 
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. 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
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 
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 
A 
B 
c 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
On behalf of Respondents it was inter alia contended that due to 
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. 
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-
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.