SMT. WINKY DILAWARI AND ANR. versus AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 03-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. WINKY DILA WARI AND ANR. 
v. 
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AMRITSAR 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, .JJ.] 
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922: 
Ss.36, 38-Notice for acquisition of land for proposed passage to 
C stadium-Failure to serve personal notice on appellants-Held, does not 
vitiate the proceedings for acquisition initiated pursuant to the approved 
scl1eme-Wl1en authorities implementing the scheme for the benefit of public 
Cowts below rightly refused to exercise discretion to grant injwzction-Scheme 
was rightly framed for providing entry into the main gate to the 
stadium-Appellant's light of residence in the locality-Held, competing 
D public interest would out-weigh the personal interest of the appellant--How-
ever he could be suitably accommodated in any available housing scheme 
taken up by respondent-Tmst-Respondent- Trnst directed to provide suitable 
site of an extent of 250 sq. yards as per prevailing reserved price. 
E 
F 
Jodh Singh v. Jullundhur Improvement Trnst, AIR (1984) P&H 398, 
approved. 
I 
/ Pt. Ram Parkash & Anr. v. Smt. Kanta Suri, (1985) PLJ 371, 
di sf pproved. 
( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.93 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in RS.A. No. 2071 of 1992. 
D.V. Sehgal, A.T.M. Sampath and Ms. Monica Gosain for the 
G Appellants. 
E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of 
502 
WINKY DILA W ARI v. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
503 
the learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in A 
RSA No. 2071/92 on August 2, 1993. The admitted facts are that the 
respondent-Trust had framed a Scheme for providing passage to Guru 
Nanak Stadium from the main road, namely Madan Mohan Malviya Road 
under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, 
the "Act"). The Scheme in that behalf was framed and notices were issued 
of the factum of framing of the Scheme; objections were invited and the 
Scheme was published under Section 78 in the weekly newspapers for three 
consecutive weeks and also in the State Official Gazette. It was also 
published in the newspapers in the locality within the specified period. The 
notice of the Scheme was sent to the President of the Municipal Committee 
B 
and to the Medical Officer under sub-section 2(b) of Section 36 of the Act. C 
No objections in that behalf came to be made. Thereafter, the Government 
had approved the Scheme under Section 40 of the Act. By operation of 
Section 42(2) of the Act, the approval of the scheme having been published 
under Section 42(1), it became conclusive evidence that the Scheme had 
been duly framed and sanctioned. Thereafter, the proceedings under D 
Schedule to the Act read with Section 59 were taken up for acquisition of 
the land proposed to be acquired under the Scheme. Section 38 of the Act 
envisages compliance of the notice of the publication in that behalf. It reads 
as under: 
"38. Notice of proposed acquisition of land : (1) During the thirty E 
days next following the first day on which any notice is published 
under section 36 in respect of any Scheme under this Act the trust 
shall serve a notice on : 
(i) every person whom the trust has reason to believe after due 
enquiry to be the owner of any immovable property which it is 
proposed to acquire in executing the Scheme. 
(ii) the occupier (who need not be named) of such premises as 
that trust proposes to acquire in executing the Scheme. 
(2) Such notice shall : · 
(a) state that the trust proposes to acquire such property for the 
purposes of carrying out a Scheme under this Act, and 
F 
G 
(b) require such person, if he objects to such acquisition, to state H 
A 
B 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
his reasons in writing within a period of sixty days from the service 
of the notice. 
(3) Every such notice shall be signed by, or by the order of the 
Chairman." 
There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that service of the 
notice on every person whom the Trust had reason to believe, after due 
enquiry, to be the owner of the immovable property which the Trust 
proposes to acquire in execution of the Scheme, or the occupier of such 
premises, is necessary. It would, therefore, be necessary that the Trust must 
C have reason to believe, after due enquiry, that the person to be affected is 
the own
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.