Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the case of the Petitioners is that they are owners of land in Mauza Tung Pain, Nawan Khuh, Urban Area, Amritsar. Petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are also owners of residential houses in the said area. The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') framed a development scheme under Section 24 read with Section 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) known as Truck Stand Scheme which was notified under Section 36 of the Act on May 11, 1974 (copy annexure P. 1). The Petitioners filed objections to the Scheme. After hearing the objections the scheme was forwarded to the State Government (Respondent No. 1) under Section 40 of the Act. It was sanctioned by the State Government on May 9, 1977 and published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated May 27, 1977. The scheme has been challenged inter alia on the ground that it was sanctioned after more than three years of the notification under Section 36 of the Act and that no provision for re -housing the Petitioners has been made as required under Section 27 of the Act.
(2.) THE writ petition has been contested by the Respondents. They have pleaded that the scheme was sanctioned by the Government within the prescribed period. They have further averred that they will consider the claim of the Petitioners for allotment of the plots. The main question that arises for determination is as to whether the scheme was sanctioned under Section 41 of the Act within the prescribed period. The facts of the case are not disputed. The notification under Section 36 of the Act, which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on May 11, 1974. The scheme was as already stated sanctioned under Section 41 of the Act by the State Government on May 9, 1977 but it was published under Sub -section (1) of Section 42 of the Act on May 27, 1977. It is not disputed that the scheme can be sanctioned within a period of three years, from the date of the notification under Section 36 of the Act. If the date of sanctioning of the scheme by the State Government is taken into consideration then the scheme shall be deemed to have been sanctioned within time but if the date of the publication of the scheme in the Government Gazette is taken into consideration the sanction is beyond time.
(3.) THE counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that the relevant date to be taken into consideration for the above said purpose is May 27, 1977. He placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Harbans Kaur and Ors. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust Ludhiana and Ors., 1973 P.L.R. 511. On the other hand the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the relevant date for sanctioning of the scheme will be deemed to be May 9, 1977 when it was sanctioned by the State Government under Section 41. According to him, it is immaterial when it was notified in the Government Gazette. To support his contention he has made a reference to Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors. : AIR 1976 S.C. 417.;