On 17th November, 1969, 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 inbuilt.
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.
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 Prakash v. Municipality Bhatinda and Anr.
The writ petition was admitted and is on board along with the present appeal.
Thereafter, on 11th May, 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.
9 Supplementary had been framed on 31st May, 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.
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.
2535 of 1981 The appellant is an exclusive owner of a plot measuring 300 sq.
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.
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.
That appeal is directed against the decision dated 12th April, 1985 of the Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court in a group of five writ petitions.
Under the said Scheme the said area of 22.23 acres was transferred to the Municipal Committee in terms of the provisions of Section 1921 c of the Act.
Since numbercompensation was paid for the land, the writ petitioners challenged the transfer of the land as illegal, it being without payment of companypensation.
yards companyprised in Khasra No.
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 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.
The second appeal was reject by the High Court in limine.
The said area included land admeasuring 11279 sq.
We are dismissing the writ petition, since it is number maintainable.
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 1/2nd March, 1977.
yards situated within the revenue limits of village Bohar.
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.
yards owned by the writ petitioners before the High Court.
818 of 1986.
The suit was dismissed and the firs appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak.
The said area was described in the Notification as pocket No.
The respondent Bhatinda Municipal Committee framed a Town Planning Scheme known as Town Planning Scheme of Area No.
For the purpose of this companymon judgment, we propose to narrate the facts in Civil Appeal No.
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.
The petitioner had companystructed pucca foundations around the disputed land since long and wanted to raise boundary walls over those foundations.
The Scheme was prepared by the Municipal Committee and sanctioned by the Government on 11.5.1976.
CA.3656/1987 W.P. 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.
