Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition by Improvement Trust Under Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Public Notice in Newspapers Sufficient; Rehousing Scheme Not Precondition for Non-Residential Scheme.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a land acquisition scheme initiated by the Improvement Trust, Moga under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Trust framed a 'truck scheme' under Section 36 of the Act to acquire 15.5 acres of land in Moga for diverting truck traffic away from Moga Town and stationing vehicles at a proposed new Mandi Market. Public notices were published in the Tribune on January 10, 17 and 24, 1975; objections were invited under Section 38 by public notice dated January 24, 1975. Further notices were published in May 1975 in Tribune and Ajit. After government approval received, notices were published in May and June 1975. Individual notices were also issued to affected persons, including the respondents, by registered post on June 11, 1975, served on June 12, 1975; objections were filed on August 8, 1975. A hearing notice was published on August 20, 1975 fixing August 25, 1975 at 3.00 p.m. but respondents did not appear. The scheme was forwarded for government approval under Section 40; approval granted; notices published in October 1975; notification under Section 41(1) published in the Gazette on December 26, 1975. The respondents challenged the acquisition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court by CWP No. 1804 of 1986. The Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated October 3, 1988, held that the respondents could not have read the newspapers and therefore the notice was insufficient, apparently interfering with the acquisition. The Improvement Trust appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court along with connected appeals. Before the Supreme Court two main legal issues arose: whether public notice under the Act was sufficient compliance or whether personal notice and hearing were mandatory; and whether a rehousing scheme under Sections 26 and 27 had to be framed and implemented before the non-residential truck scheme could be executed. The respondents argued that they were not served personal notice and had no personal hearing, and that without rehousing scheme they could not be dispossessed as they had composite residential and factory premises. The Trust contended that the Act only required public notice by newspaper and gazette, which had been complied with, and that rehousing was not a condition precedent for a non-residential scheme. The Supreme Court examined Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. It held that the statute required general publication; publication in newspaper and gazette was a mandatory requirement. The Act did not provide for individual notice or personal hearing for objections. Once the statute required publication in the newspaper, that was sufficient compliance; it presumed that intending objectors were put on notice of the hearing and it was for them to appear. Failure to appear could not be made a grievance of absence of personal notice, which the statute did not require. The High Court's reasoning that respondents could not have read newspapers was fallacious. On rehousing, the Court considered Sections 26 and 27. It observed that those provisions apply where a housing scheme is established; displaced house-owners are required to be rehoused under such scheme. If the legislature intended that even for non-residential schemes rehousing scheme was a precondition, no non-residential scheme could be implemented until residential scheme was fully operative. That would render non-residential schemes ineffective. The Court held that for acquisition of land to effectuate non-residential schemes, it was not mandatory that rehousing of the residential scheme should first be initiated and implemented. The Court noted that an award had already been passed and amount deposited; except the respondents, all others had surrendered possession. The Court directed respondents to deliver possession within six months and file usual undertaking within four weeks. It allowed respondents to apply for rehousing; the Trust would consider the application in accordance with rules after notice and hearing. The main appeal of the Trust was allowed; connected appeals of claimants were dismissed; no costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The main appeal of the Improvement Trust was allowed; connected appeals filed by claimants were dismissed. Respondents were directed to deliver possession within six months and to file usual undertaking within four weeks. They were permitted to make an application for rehousing, which the Trust had to consider after notice and hearing.

Law Points