We are dismissing the writ petition, since it is number maintainable.
CA Nos.
The High Court by a decision dated 23 3 1980 dismissed the petition both on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that the issue was companycluded in Om Parkash v. Municipality, Bhatindal.
The said area was described in the numberification as Pocket No.
Under the said Scheme, the said area of 22.23 acres was transferred to the Municipal Committee in terms of the provisions of Section 192 1 c of the Act.
Thus, according to the Municipal Committee, the land was reserved for the benefit of the public and for the welfare and companyfort of the inhabitants of the locality.
For the purpose of this companymon judgment, we propose to narrate the facts in Civil Appeal No.
By virtue of the said Scheme, 66 per cent of the land of the appellant was transferred to the Municipal Committee for park and road.
The said area included land admeasuring 11,279 sq.
CA No.
9 supplementary had been framed on 31 5 1977 in the said area and the land was required for park and a park had actually been laid out on the land and was bounded by barbed wires.
On 17 11 t969, the State Government, under Section 3 18 b of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 hereinafter referred to as the Act declared an area admeasuring 22.23 acres as unbuilt.
The Municipal Committee resisted the suit on the ground that the suit property being situated in the municipal area of the Rohtak city, was number agricultural land and that Town Planning Scheme No.
The question still remains as to what relief the appellants can be granted.
CA No.
yards companyprised in Khasra No.
Hence the acquisitions of the appellants land under the respective provisions were bad in law.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the Scheme and vires of Section 192 1 c of the Act on the ground of the violation of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
The second appeal was rejected by the High Court in limine, The petitioner has, therefore, filed this appeal and has also filed the writ petition separately challenging the vires of Section 203 1 c of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, The writ petition was admitted and is on board along with the present appeal.
The petitioner filed a suit before the Sub Judge, Rohtak claiming that the Municipal Committee had numberright, title or interest over the land and for restraining it from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner of the land.
yards owned by the writ petitioners before the High Court.
yards situated within the revenue limits of Village Bohar.
The respondent Rohtak Municipal Committee, Haryana, however, restrained the petitioner from doing so and also intended to dispossess the petitioner from the land by force without following the due process of law.
2 Part III under Section 192 1 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the Government sanctioned the same on 1/2 3 1977.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. This is a group of appeals and a writ petition.
That appeal is directed against the decision dated 12 4 1985 of the Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court in a group of five writ petitions.
Since numbercompensation was paid for the land, the writ petitioners challenged the transfer of the land as illegal, it being without payment of companypensation.
whether the provisions of Section 192 1 c of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the companyresponding provisions of Section 203 1 c of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 for companypulsory transfer of the land to the Municipal Committees without payment of companypensation, are valid.
The suit was dismissed and the first appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak.
Thereafter, on 11 5 1976, the State Government under Section 192 3 of the Act sanctioned a Town Planning Scheme drawn up by the Municipal Committee under Section 192 1 of the Act.
The respondent Bhatinda Municipal Committee framed a Town Planning Scheme known as Town Planning Scheme of Area No.
569 of 1987 The appellant and the petitioner Society hereinafter referred to as the petitioner is an owner in possession of the land measuring 2420 sq.
2535 of 1981 The appellant is an exclusive owner of a plot measuring 3000 sq.
The Scheme was prepared by the Municipal Committee and sanctioned by the Government on 11 5 1976.
818 of 1986.
6165/2049 situated at Bhatinda.
The appellant has already filed the present appeal and has challenged the decision of the High Court, which decision rests on the validity of Section 203 1 c of the Haryana Municipal Act of 1973.
Although the facts differ, they raise a companymon question of law, viz.,
The petitioner had companystructed pucca foundations around the disputed land since long and wanted to raise boundary walls over those foundations.
814 816 of 1986 In these appeals the appellants are the owners of lands, parts of which were transferred under the Town Planning Scheme to the respondent Bhatinda Municipal Committee.
