Dua, J. - (1.) This appeal has been presented in this Court pursuant to a certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and is directed against the order of a Division Bench of that Court dated October 1, 1970 dismissing the appellants' writ petition challenging the legality of the order dated May 25, 1970 passed by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, respondent No.1 in this Court. By the impugned order the said Improvement Trust had included in the development scheme prepared by the Trust the appellants' land measuring about 68 Kanals, 16 marlas. The appellants had also prayed in the High Court that the Improvement Trust and land Acquisition Collector be restrained from acquiring and taking possession of the appellants' said land.
(2.) The Improvement Trust, Amritsar, framed a development scheme in 1961 under Section 24 read with Section 28 (2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, (No. 1V) 1922 (hereinafter called the Act). The scheme covered an area measuring approximately 128 acres within the boundaries of the Municipality of Amritsar. It was framed vide resolution No.125 dated November 10, 1961. Notice under Section 36 of the Act was issued on November 21, 1961 and was published in three consecutive issues of the Punjab Government Gazette in December, 1961; it was duly published in the daily Tribune and Milap as well. A copy of the said notice along with survey plan of the area was also sent to the President and to the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Committee Amritsar in accordance with Section 36(2) (b) of the Act. Notices under Section 38 of the Act were also issued to the owners and occupiers in the area covered by the scheme. In response to notices under Sections 36 and 38 objections were received and considered by the Trust in June, 1962 when the objectors were also called for personal hearing. The layout of the scheme prepared after considering the objections were again considered by the Trust in its meeting held in October, 1962 and was approved by means of a resolution. At this meeting it was decided by the Trust to exclude from the purview of the Scheme the built up area abutting on Mall Road. The layout was normally approved by the Senior Town Planner and was finally approved by the Trust on January 31, 1963. The scheme as finally approved provided for the development of the vast area which was mostly unbuilt and the locality was chosen to be developed mainly as a residential colony with two small plots earmarked for commercial purposes. The scheme was forwarded to the Punjab State Government on March 5, 1963; in the forwarding note all these facts were mentioned. The Governor of Punjab sanctioned the scheme on September 17, 1963 and the sanction was duly noticed under Section 42(1) of the Act. Pursuant to this scheme the Government acquired the said 128 acres of land including the land belonging to the appellants. In April, 1964 the appellants applied to the State Government for exempting their land from acquisition on the ground that there existed on it a fully developed orchard. The State Government recommended their case to the Chairman of the Improvement Trust with the remark that fruit orchards be exempted from the purview of the scheme. Having failed to hear anything from the Improvement Trust the appellants claim to have approached the Government a number of times with the request for exempting their land but without success. According to the appellants the Improvement Trust had exempted similar orchards of some other persons and since failure to exempt their orchard was violative of Art.14 of the Constitution they presented a writ petition (C.W. no.1567 of 1965) in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1965. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of that Court. On Letters Patent appeal, however, a Division Bench of that Court granted to the appellants relief in the following terms: "In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the matter of exemption deserves determination by the Trust in the light of all the relevant facts. We would accordingly accept this appeal and direct that the respondent Trust should allow full opportunity of hearing to the appellants regarding their case for exemption and after considering the same decide the case on merits". This order was made on February 26, 1970. Apparently pursuant to these directions the appellants on March 2, 1970 made an application to the Improvement Trust, Amritsar under Section 56 of the Act. This application was rejected by the Trust by means of the impugned order which was challenged by the appellants by means of a writ petition C. W. P. No. 2314 of 1970) in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in July, 1970.
(3.) Though in the writ petition it was also pleaded that the provisions of the Act are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, in so far as they provided for two types of acquisition, namely, (i) wholesale acquisition and (ii) acquisition which permits possession with certain land owners by exempting their lands on payment of betterment contribution only, apparently at the time of arguments in the High Court this challenge to the statute was not pressed. In the High Court as appears from the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench the only point urged was that the Trust had given no reasons in the impugned order as to why the entire land of the appellants was considered necessary for the execution of the scheme. The Trust, it was contended, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when determining the claims under Section 56 of the Act and, therefore, it was required to give reasons for its conclusions that the entire land belonging to the appellant was "absolutely necessary" for the development scheme. The contention proceeded that only the land necessary for constructing roads and sewage could be acquired and the Trust could not acquire land in order merely to make profit by re-selling it after making small plots. This submission was repelled by the letters Patent Bench for the reason that it had not been raised before the Improvement Trust. This is what the High Court said in this connection: "After hearing the counsel for the parties we find that there is no merit in this petition. As I have said the main argument urged by the petitioners before the Improvement Trust seemed to be that they were being given a stepmotherly treatment, because the fruit orchards of other people were being exempted while their lands where fruit growing trees were standing were being included in the scheme. It appears that the point, this is now being canvassed before us, was not pressed before the Trust. In Para 4 of the application made by the petitioners under Section 55 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, to respondent no.1 all that was stated was that the acquisition of most of their land was unnecessary for the execution of the scheme. Apart from making this bare statement nothing has been shown as to how it was unnecessary. In the impugned order the Trust has made a categorical statement that the land of the petitioners was necessary for the execution of the development scheme. In Para 5 of the written statement filed by the Improvement Trust it was clearly said that the area was required for the purpose of the development scheme which inter alia included laying of streets, underground sewers, open spaces, sites for construction of buildings for residential commercial and commercial-cum-residential purposes. It was further mentioned that the land of the petitioners was required for the construction of roads, sewers and building plots etc. We have ourselves also seen the plans and we find that if a part of the petitioner's land was exempted from acquisition, it might adversely affect the development scheme. It may be noted that the scheme is one integral whole and the petitioner's land would be utilised for the construction of roads, sewarage and residential plots. When the development scheme was published the petitioner's land was considered to be necessary for the execution of that scheme and that is why it was included therein. The petitioners have not shown as to how it was not essential for the said scheme. The Improvement Trust has given reasons as to why the acquisition is necessary. It is needless to mention that the petitioners will get adequate compensation for their land which has been acquired for the said scheme. It was conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that it was not the requirement of the statute that the Trust should give reasons for saying as to how a particular land was necessary for the scheme. At any rate, in this case it has been proved on the record that the petitioner's land was essential for the development scheme framed by the Improvement Trust".;