M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE Municipal Committee, Jullundur, passed a resolution on October 7, 1960, by which the Town Improvement Trust, Jullundur (hereinafter called the Trust), was requested to widen the Chowk Adda Hoshiarpur. The Trust agreed to frame a scheme for this purpose provided the Municipal Committee agreed to share the cost on 50:50 basis. The Municipal Committee wide its resolution dated February 24, 1961, agreed to this proposal. Upon this, the Trust passed a resolution on may 31, 1961, to frame a scheme covering an area of approximately five Kanals for the purpose of widening the above -Mentioned Chowk. Notices under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Apt (hereinafter called the Act) were published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated August 18, August 25 and September 1, 1961. One citation was also inserted in the Daily Milap on August 30, 1961, inviting Ejections against the scheme, if any. Thereafter, individual notices under Section 38 of the Act were also served on the persons who were the owners and occupiers of the land covered by the scheme. They were called upon to submit their objections within a period of 60 days of the service of the notice against the proposed scheme. The Trust passed a resolution on November 28, 1981, by which, a Committee consisting of Sarvshri B.K. Dewan, Kartar Singh Babbar and Satya Pal was constituted to consider the objections received. The objections were rejected in due course of time. On December 30, 1967, the State of Punjab accorded its sanction to the scheme as envisaged by Section 42 of the Act.
(2.) THE Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, who are stated to be owners of the property in dispute and the Petitioners Nos. 7 to 20 who are stated to be tenants of the property covered by fee scheme have filed a joint petition on the ground that no scheme could be put into execution unless a scheme for re -housing was framed and have challenged the relevant provisions of the Act under, which, the affected persons were not being paid solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on account of compulsory acquisition of land. Along with the petition, some Annexures have also been filed, which are the copies of the objections preferred by some of the Petitioners after the scheme had been finally approved by the State Government. In the return filed on behalf of the Trust, it has been stated that no objections were filed against the scheme by any person under Section 36 of the Act. Some objections were, however, filed under Section 38 of the Act which were disposed of by the Committee in accordance with law. It has also been urged that demand for re -housing of the scheme was made only on February 7, 1969, after the scheme had been duly sanctioned. The other objection raised was that the property in dispute was not being used for residence and none of the Petitioners was a resident -house -owner within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, it was not necessary for the Trust to make a scheme for re -housing,
(3.) THE petition came up for hearing before me on April 18, 1973. It was argued that a person who owns a shop, works and resides therein also comes within the definition of the word "resident -house -owner". Since this point was likely to crop up in a large number of cases, I requested my Lord the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench and this is how this case has come up for hearing before this Bench.;