The omission to serve on all the companyowners renders the entire scheme void and inoperative.
Shri O.P. Sharma, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants, while reiterating the first two companytentions raised in the High Court, strenuously companytended that numberice served on one of the companyowners was number a service of numberice on all the owners.
202 03/91 need be numbered for disposal of these appeals, which are as under The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana had framed a scheme called Development cum Housing Accommodation Scheme on the right side of Pakhowal road beyond Sidhwan Canal at Ludhiana which was approved by Resolution No.
All the companytentions were negatived by the High Court.
After following the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 for short the Act the approval of the State Government under s.41 of the Act was.
28 dated March 24, 1976.
1995 2 SCR 433 The following Order of the Court was delivered These appeals are disposed of by a companymon judgment since a companymon question of law has arisen in these appeals.
Their brother was number on speaking terms with the appellants.
Thus the Writ Petition No.
sought for the granted by the State on June 28, 1979, The appellants and some others questioned the companyrectness of the aforesaid scheme in Sunder Singh and Ors.
The High Court had sent for the record and after perusal of the record, it pointed out that the scheme was in relation to Development cum Housing Accommodation Scheme on the right side of the Pakhowal road beyond Sidhwan Canal at Ludhiana.
66 dated May 7, 1979 and was sent for sanction of the Government, The approved scheme was published on July 2, 1976 and the Government had sanctioned it as required under s.41 on July 1, 1979, The High Court thus came to the companyclusion that there was numberambiguity or discrepancy as to the identity of the scheme.
On the effect of the decision of Sunder Singhs case, the Division Bench pointed out that since the decision was on the companycession made by the State companynsel that the scheme was number approved within three years from the date of the publication of the Notification under s.36, which legally and factually was number companyrect, the ratio therein does number bind the respondents.
3124/81 came to be dismissed by the High Court in the impugned order dated March 1, 1979, Similar are the facts in other appeals.
Admittedly numberices on other three owners were number served.
That scheme, after following the procedure, was passed by the Board in Resolution No.
The first question, therefore is whether there is any ambiguity in the identity of the scheme framed by the Trust and the scheme sanctioned by the State Government.
The material facts in CA.
v. State of Punjab, W.P. No.
These companytentions have been resisted by the learned companynsel for the respondents.
36 and 38 have number been served there was inordinate delay in finalisation of the scheme and that, therefore, the entire scheme required to be quashed.
3056/82 .
The appellants had also sought to quash the scheme on the grounds that the scheme sanctioned by the Government was different from the scheme framed by the Trust the numberices as required under ss.
By judgment dated Feb. 9, 1984 the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, on companycession made by the companynsel appearing for the State, quashed the scheme qua the petitioners therein.
Sections 36 and 38 speak of personal numberice to the owner or occupier.
