LexTEJA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R. A operation of section 6 of the 1894 Act. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 does not con- template any re-publication of modified scheme. The omission in that B behalf is discernible. The Act enjoins the trust to frame the scheme and its publication so as to invite objections within thirty days from the date of the publication. On receipt of the objection, if any, and after bearing the parties, the Trust is required to approve the scheme. When the objections were duly considered and the scheme was modified, there arises no need \ C for publication of the approved scheme. Therefore, the modified scheme is ')v! not required to be re-published under sections 36 and 38 of the Act. [437-D-E] 2. Service of notice on one of the co-owners, when more than one have interest in the acquired land, would be sufficient service of notice on other D co-owners. Therefore, non-service of notice on the petitioners does not invalidate the scheme framed by the Trust. [ 439-F] 3. A conjoint reading of sections 38 and 79(2) (a) would clearly postulate that when the Act has not otherwise specifically provided, the notice served etc. on one is a notice to or on behalf of co-owners a'1d is a E valid notice. Section 38 did not expressly state that notice shall be served on all owners if more than one co-owners has interest in the land under acquisition. Reliance on dause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 38 to contend that "every person" referred therein would include all co-owners and that , therefore, notice is required to be served on all the co-owners is F misconceived. What clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 38 con- templates is only to find out who is believed to be owner or occupier of the land sought to be acquired by the trust. If this is noted, it would be clear that the aforesaid clause does not deahvith service of notice, which has been dealt by section 79(2)(a); [439-,¢'EJ G 4. It would thus be clear that the legislature itself being aware of the existence of co-owners or occupier, authorised the trust to have the notice given, tendered or served on one owner or occupier and such service of notice is legal and valid notice. Even otherwise on principle of law also, it is common knowledge that every co-owner may not be in occupation of the H land or may not be cultivating the land or be in actual possession. He may I . - 1 TEJASINGH v.STAIBOFPB. 435 be residing elsewhere due to educational or pursuit of professional job etc., A So, they may not be available for service. Legislature being cognizant to this situation has taken care to see that if more than one owner or occupier have interest in the land and the land belonging to co-owners or occupiers is sought to be acquired, service on one is taken as service on all the co-owners. (438-G-H, 439-A] / B 5. Section 40 clearly indicates that the period of three year_s would begin to run only from the date when the notification under section 36 was published and not from the date on which the sc~eme was prepared by the Trust. Though the scheme was prepared on June 21, 1976 since it was published on July 2, 1976 the limitation began to run only from July 2, C 1976 and the Government has sanctioned it within three years from the date namely on June 28, 1979. Hence it was within time. (440-D] Bhatinda Improvement Tmst v. Ba/want Singh, A.LR. (1992) SC 2214, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 201-206 D ./ • of 1991. ---< From the Judgments and Orders dated 31st July, 1989, 3rd January, 1989 and 1st June, 1989 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5873 of 1985, 5772 of 1981, 3124 of E 1987, 5772 of 1981, 3285 of 1986 and 411 of 1986 respectively. O.P. Sharma, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, Mr. Namila Sharma, Ashok Sudan, R.C. Gubrele, Ashok Mathur, Sanjay Sareen, Mr. Neelam Sharma, Uma Datta, T.C. Sharma, Ms. S. Sarani, Sanjay Bansal and G.K. Bansal for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : F These appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since a common question of law has arisen in these appeals. The material facts in G C.A. Nos. 202-03/91 need be noted for disposal of these appeals, which are as under: The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana had framed a scheme called 'Development-cum-Housing Accommodation Scheme'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.