R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1691 and 2663 of 1975, which involve common questions of law and fact. In this judgment the facts are being given from Civil Writ No. 691 of 1975.
(2.) THE case of the Petitioners is that they were the owners of certain plots in Civil Lines, Jagadhn All of them, except Petitioner No. 1. have constructed houses on those plots. The Jagadhri improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust, Respondent No. 2, thought of framing a development scheme under Section 24 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for an area measuring about 21 Acres of land situated in Civil Lines, Jagadhri, including the above said plots of the Petitioners. On October 12, 1970, the Trust passed a resolution (copy Annexure 'P -2' to the petition) to develop that piece of land and directed the framing of a development scheme, in the Trust Office, under Section 24, read with Sections 38(2) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v). (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) of the Act. It published notice dated October 19, 1970 (copy Annexure 'P -3') on October 11, 1970 and November 3, 1970, respectively, under Section 36 of the Act and also served notices under Section 38 (Annexure 'P -4') on the Petitioners. They filed objections against the scheme. The Trust, after disposing of the objections, applied to the State Government for sanctioning the scheme, which the Government sanctioned on October 10, 1973, and published in the Gazette on the same day under Section 42 of the Act. A copy of the notification is Annexure 'P -6' to the petition. The Petitioners have challenged the notices Annexures 'P -3' and "P -4'. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondents. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that before the publication of a notice under Section 36 of the Act, it is obligatory that there must be in existence a development scheme validly framed A development scheme has to provide inter alia for the lay out of the locality to be developed, the purposes for which particular portions of such locality and to be utilised , the prescribed street alignment, the building line on each side of the streets proposed in such locality, etc. No scheme including the aforesaid requirements or the requirements mentioned in Section 28 was ever framed by the Trust before the publication of the notice under Section 36. It is further contended by the Learned Counsel that without complying with the provisions of Section 36, the resolution under Section 40 for applying to the State Government to sanction the alleged scheme is meaningless and the section of the scheme by the State is illegal and void and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the issuance of notices to the Petitioners under Section 38 was only a formality in as much as no hearing had been given to them and their objections had not been considered and disposed of in accordance with law. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents has vehemently argued that all the formalities had been completed by the Trust and in case some of them had not been done, the State Government had sanctioned and notified the scheme. According to him, if the scheme had been sanctioned and notified by the Government, it was the conclusive evidence that the same had been duly framed and sanctioned under Section 42(2) of the Act.
(3.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. The controversy raised by Mr. Saini is that certain formalities which were required to be completed before forwarding the scheme for sanction and approval of the Government, were not done. I shall first refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.;