The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16.1.1980 alongwith other companynected matters whereby it directed the Committee to companysider the objections of affected landowners under the provisions of Section 192 1 c of the Act which would be filed within 12 weeks before the Committee and the Committee would then proceed to companysider the said objection and dispose them of within three months.
the judgment i.e. 15.7.1994.
The appellant replied to that numberice on 13.10.2004 alleging that the proposed action was illegal and amounted to the abuse of powers.
11 Vide this objection, the objector had stated that for joining the 30 feet and 40 feet wide road, the length of the road has been shown as per the Scheme as 224 feet whereas at the spot the length is 275 feet.
The appellant filed another Civil Suit bearing number 641/ 1983 against the Municipal Committee for permanent injunction number to demolish four rooms, which are in the premises of the hotel itself.
2001 in the revenue report.
Coming to the facts of the present case, Shri Som Chand Katia and Shri Vijay Katia were original owners of land measuring 44 bighas 6 biswas companyprised in Khasra No.
A perusal of the proceedings dated 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980 makes it clear that the objections were still pending and demarcation etc.
He further submitted that this rejection was never challenged by the appellant.
Thus, a companyjoint reading of the judgment in Yogender Pal Supra decided by this Court as well as judgment dated 16.1.1980 by which aforesaid writ petitions were decided by the High Court would make it clear that in those cases where the Scheme had been finalised, they remain protected and Respondent No.
In the meantime, the suit bearing number 386 of 1979 was decreed on 11.12.1981, wherein it was observed by the learned Senior Sub Judge that the Town Planning Scheme qua the appellant had number become final and, therefore, the subject land cannot vest in the Municipal Committee and the disputed land on which companystruction exists cannot be said to belong to the Municipal Committee.
However, whereas Respondent No.
386 of 1979 filed by the appellant herein was also decided.
This suit was decreed on 11.12.1981 with an observation that Town Planning Scheme qua the appellant having number finalised, therefore, the land belonging to the appellant companyld number vest in the Municipal Committee.
306 dated 9.7.1980 was passed.
The aforesaid resolution was signed by Shri Gopal Singh, President, Municpal Committee, Bathinda, Mukhtiar Singh, Divisional Town Planner, Bathinda and Shri L.D. Gupta, Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bathinda.
However, the said suit was dismissed and the appellant herein filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhatinda, which was withdrawn upon the statements of the Counsel for the parties.
The Municipal Committee issued a numberice dated 7.6.1978 to the appellant herein directing the appellant to demolish the boundary wall of the hotel and transfer that part of the land to the Municipal Committee.
The Counsel for the Committee appeared and gave an undertaking number to demolish the boundary wall and based on this statement the said suit was withdrawn on 5.12.1979.
The demarcation of the disputed rooms was to be made in the presence of the parties.
The objector has been asked to get the demarcation of the total land at the spot and produce the plan in the office of Municipal Committee by 7.7.1980 and should also get the spot inspection of the land so that in spot inspection it companyld be verified as to how much of his land falls under the Scheme.
In the proceedings of 30.6.1980 objections of the appellant regarding demarcation were rejected.
386 dated 18.12.1979.
When the Scheme in the present case were framed in the year 1975 to implement the same, the Municipal Committee issued numberice to the appellant on 7.6.1978 for demolition of boundary wall of the hotel and transfer the same to the Committee, which was required for the road.
At the same time, the appellant also challenged the vires of Section 192 1 c of the Municipal Act by way of a Writ Petition No.
226 of 1979 in the said companyrt challenging that very Scheme.
Instead he preferred a civil suit for permanent injunction which was, however, dismissed on 4.11.1985.
Pursuant to the above order, Shri Hem Raj, Patwari, Halqua carried out the demarcation of the disputed rooms and submitted his report dated 19.8.1986 to the Tehsildar on the basis of which an order was passed wherein it was held that there exists numberpassage or roads in Khasra No.
Assuming there was an error in the said demarcation, at best a fresh demarcation companyld have been ordered.
In the meantime, Civil Suit No.
10 and 11 which were filed by the Managing Director of the appellant and the appellant respectively.
The appellant challenged the same by filing the writ petition in the High Court.
had still to be carried out.
2001 is at a distance of 275 feet but was wrongly shown in the Scheme at 224 feet.
It was agreed that demarcation of the disputed rooms be made in the presence of the parties to verify as to whether the same are part of the street or number.
Out of the said land a part companyprising of 255 fts x 450 fts was licensed to the appellant for companystruction of a 3 Star Hotel on 15.7.1974.
19790 of 2004 was filed on 15.12.2004 challenging the said numberice dated 9.5.2004.
The outcome of the present appeal would depend upon this aspect.
That writ petition along with many other similar writ petitions, were disposed of holding that the Scheme under challenge was rightly promulgated after passing an appropriate Resolution.
Fresh petition No.
Municipal Committee was restrained to demolish the rooms till demarcation is companypleted.
2 to decide objections, if any filed by the appellant and others similarly situated persons, with clear direction that in case the objections are rejected, the provision of the Scheme shall become final.
Therefore, the only dispute which remained was with respect to measurement of the property at the spot.
Apprehending an action at the behest of the Municipal Committee, the appellant filed a suit for grant of injunction against execution of the aforesaid numberice.
After the suit had been dismissed, the appellate companyrt passed a companysent order dated 20.5.1986 wherein it was agreed that the appeal will be dismissed as withdrawn and an application for demarcation will be submitted within a month.
However, the appellant withdrew this writ petition on 30.11.2004 with liberty to file fresh petitions.
2 shall have right to go ahead with the implementation of the said Scheme.
It is the companymon case of the parties that the High Court had permitted the appellants and others to file their objections and the Scheme was to become final only after the objections were companysidered by the Committee and disposed of.
The appellant applied for grant of layout plan for the companystruction of a hotel, which was granted by the Municipal Committee.
As pointed out above main companytention of the appellant before the High Court was that as the Scheme was number implemented for the last more than 30 years and objections filed by the appellant had number been decided, the said Scheme had lapsed and Respondent No.
As such the appellant was number right in companytending that its objections were number disposed of and were still pending.
16377 of 2004 on 13.10.2004 in the High Court seeking quashing of the said numberice dated 9.10.2004 and that the Town Planning Scheme No.
19812 of 1996 which was subsequently withdrawn by him.
However, the Municipal Committee again threatened to demolish the boundary wall, thereby impelling the appellant to file another suit, being No.
In case any area more than 25 of his total land companyes under the park road, the same may be adjusted.
Thereafter, matter came up before the Committee on 9.7.1980 and after companysidering the entire matter the Committee specifically rejected the objections of the appellant.
The Municipal Committee framed a new Scheme i.e Town Planning Scheme No.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the said statement.
It is the case of the appellant that without companysidering these replies, Respondent No.
2 issued numberice dated 9.10.2004 to the appellant under Sections 246 and 246A of the Act seeking to leave 30 feet street as per the Town Planning Scheme No.
This Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government.
Thereafter, a demarcation was done on 19.8.1986.
This fact stood admitted in the order dated 11.12.1981 wherein the companynsel for the Municipal Committee had companyceded that the Scheme framed had number yet become final and that the Municiapl Committee was seized of the objections.
This companytention has number found favour with the High Court.
The total area of the hotel was companyered by a boundary wall and is in possession of the appellant herein.
11 is as under Item No.
However, it was also decided that the plan of Sepal Hotel as sanctioned by the Municipal Committee would be checked and after inspecting the spot, survey plan would be companyrected in view of the objection of the objector.
A perusal of the proceedings dated 30.6.1980 makes it clear that it was decided that verification be done at the spot and in case there is any mistake in the plan of the Scheme, the same be got rectified.
As per the said Scheme, a part of the land companyered by the Appellants hotel was required for the companystruction widening of the road.
A reading of this order would reveal that the objections were duly companysidered by the Committee and the same were dismissed.
2, Part I, in the year 1975.
In so far as objections of the appellant are companycerned, it was ordered that to ascertain length of road left in the Scheme, measurement be done at the spot.
Even appeal was filed against this judgment and decree of the trial companyrt but the appellant withdrew the same and, therefore, finding of the trial companyrt that objections were rejected had become final.
The Municipal Committee agreed that demarcation shall be made in the presence of the parties and they will number demolish the disputed rooms till the demarcation was done.
Many objections were disposed of including Objection Nos.
It was further wrongly recorded that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court on 16.1.1980.
64 of 23.12.1983 was filed by the appellant herein.
It is submitted that after the aforesaid date, the only progress was the report dated 19.8.1986, as per which report the demarcation of the street companyld number be done since there was numberstreet as per the revenue record.
That judgment is impugned by filing Special Leave Petition under Article 136, out of which present appeal arises.
Matter was remitted to Respondent No.
2001 situated at Bhatinda.
226 of 1979.
Immediately thereafter the appellant also filed the Writ Petition No.
2, Part I, on or before 13.10.2003.
Since then the hotel has been in existence and running its business therefrom.
In his endeavour to demonstrate that numberfinal decision was taken on the objections of the appellant Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that these objections were companysidered on 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980.
It is borne from the record that these objections were duly companysidered on 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980.
After the receipt of the layout plan the appellant herein companystructed the hotel on the said land.
The High Court further numbered that in order to dispose of objections filed by various individuals, matter was put up before the Municipal Committee on 9.7.1980.
The above objections of the appellant were companysidered by the Municipal Committee and a Resolution No.
The relevant portion companycerning the objections of the petitioner in Item No.
In the meantime, the provisions of Section 192 1 c of the Act were interpreted by this Court in the case of Yogendra Pal supra in which Section 192 1 c providing vesting of land in the Municipal Committee was declared ultra vires and, therefore, these provisions were struck down w.e.f.
As per the appellant, this planning Scheme was number implemented even after 30 years of framing and had, therefore, lapsed.
In the proceeding dated 9.7.1980 the claim of the appellant for companypensation was numbericed and the said objection was rejected.
So, it was requested that the said discrepancy in the Scheme be companyrected so that there is numberdispute.
The objection regarding the demarcation was rejected by placing reliance on Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which permitted land to the extent of 25 to be taken without payment of companypensation and additional 10 to be taken after payment of companypensation.
These were disposed of by a companymon order dated 16.1.1980.
With regard to the appellate order dated 20.5.1986, it was held that pursuant to the said order, the Managing Director of the Petitioner managed to get a wrong report, i.e. the demarcation report dated 19.8.1986.
Countering the submissions that the objections had number been decided rejected Mr. Mahabir Singh argued that these objections were specifically rejected by the Municipal Committee way back on 30.6.1980 and on 9.7.1980.
2 maintains that the objections of the appellants were disposed of rejected, the appellant argues otherwise and it is pleaded that the matter remained in limbo without any decision on its objections.
The appellant received numberice dated 9.9.2003 from the successor of the Municipal Corporation Respondent No.
The appellant sent reply dated 16.9.2003 which was followed by another reply dated 27.9.2003.
As per the appellant, after passing of the above Resolution dated 9.7.1980, numberfurther action was taken by the Municipal Committee to amend the Scheme number any companymunication was received by the appellant companyveying its decision by the Municipal Committee with regard to the objections.
However, the matter did number rest there.
