A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. - (1.) These Letters Patent Appeal Nos.44 to 50, 466 and 467, all of 1990, were filed by Bhatinda Improvement Trust, Bhatinda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') in this Court in the year 1990 against the judgment and order dated 20.10.1989, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petitions quashing the acquisition of land that was acquired by the Trust. There were two land acquisitions for the scheme to be implemented by the Trust. One was in respect of 16.44 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the first set of cases') and the other related to 25.21 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the second set of cases').
(2.) This Court had decided all these appeals, Civil Writ Petitions as well as Contempt Petitions by judgment and order dated 02.04.2012. The Letters Patent Appeals were allowed and the acquisition as aforesaid, of the land was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The appellate judgment was put to challenge by the aggrieved parties before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 1057-1058 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8050-8051 of 2013)(CC Nos.8763-8764 of 2012), 1059 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15859 of 2012), 1060 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15912 of 2012), 1061 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8052 of 2013)(CC No.9157 of 2012), 1062-1063 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8053- 8054 of 2013)(CC Nos.9280-9281 of 2012), 1064 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8055 of 2013)(CC No.9484 of 2012), 1065 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.22269 of 2012), 1066 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.22271 of 2012), 1067-1071 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.25221- 25225 of 2012), 1072 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.25232 of 2012) and 1073-1074 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8056-8057 of 2013)(CC Nos.17476-17477 of 2012). The Apex Court on 08.02.2013, set aside the appellate judgment of this Court and remitted all the matters to this Court for fresh consideration by leaving all the questions involved in these matters open to be again adjudicated by this Court. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion from the said order made by the Apex Court, which reads thus:- "4. Having regard to the dispute whether notices under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust, 1922 were duly served on the petitioners and, if served, whether any objections were filed by them, Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel for the Bhatinda Improvement Trust (BIT), submits that BIT has no objection if the matters are appropriately considered by the High Court again." "7. All questions in the above matters are left open to be agitated before the High Court."
(3.) It is in the light of the above background facts, all these matters were listed before this court for hearing.;