HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the notification dated 21.6.1974 (Annexure P.1) under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (for short 'the Act'); notification dated 16.4.1976 issued under Section 42 of the Act and also the order dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure P.13), whereby the resolution of the Improvement Trust was annulled by the State Government.
(2.) THE brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner purchased an area measuring 3500 square yards by two separate registered sale deeds dated 22.8.1973 and 2.11.1973. The petitioner constructed a petrol pump, which was commissioned on 20.5.1974. The petitioner alleged that he built the boundary wall around the entire land and two rooms at the two rear corners of the plot and that two steel gates were fitted in the boundary wall and a tubewell was dug for providing water for the service station. It is pointed out that the Improvement Trust Patiala, framed a development scheme for an area measuring 40.25 acres known as Truck Stand and Booking Agency Scheme under the Act. A notification under Section 36 of the Act was first published on 21.6.1974, whereas the notification under Section 42 of the Act was published on 16.4.1976. On 2.3.1978, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the Award in respect of the land except one bigha of land purportedly left for the petrol pump which was likely to be exempted. No compensation was assessed for the alleged constructions standing on the land, whereas compensation of Rs. 17,250/- was assessed by the Collector for acquisition of the land. Aggrieved against the said determination of the compensation, the petitioner sought a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 10.4.1978. It was thereafter on 19.5.1978, the State Government exempted the petrol pump set up by the petitioner from acquisition subject to payment of development charges and exemption fee etc. and that the other area of the petitioner around the petrol pump shall be acquired. On 6.2.1979, the petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the Improvement Trust from dispossessing the petitioner. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.7.1980. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal for stay of dispossession of the petitioner as no compensation was assessed for the kothas, tubewell, boundary wall etc. The stand taken up by the Improvement Trust in the reply dated 15.1.1980 was to the effect that if any construction or tubewell is found on the site acquired, the same will be got assessed under the supplementary award and the payment will be made to the petitioner. The petitioner relies upon a report dated 7.2.1980 prepared by the Improvement Trust's Engineer (Annexure P.6) as per the directions of the Tribunal dated 23.1.1980.
(3.) STILL further the petitioner sold the leasehold rights of 1500 square yards area i.e. the land underneath the petrol pump, thereby retaining lease hold rights in respect of the remaining area. It was also pointed out that the Supplementary Award has not been given within a period of two years and, therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as inserted by the Central Act No. 68 of 19841 the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed. The petitioner made a representation for release of his land from acquisition on 27.1988 on the said grounds. A resolution was passed by the Improvement Trust agreeing to release the land in dispute from acquisition under the provisions of Section 56 of the Act. The a petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3,570/- as development charges. In pursuance of the said resolution, an agreement was also executed. But, the notification, as contemplated under Section 56 of the Act, was not issued. It was almost 11 years later, the petitioner submitted a representation on 19.1.099 for release of his land. It was thereafter, an order was passed by the State Government on 11.5.2001 under Section 72-E of the Act annulling the solution dated 27.1.1988. Thus, the petitioner has sought to challenge the notification dated 21.6.1974 (Annexure P.1) and 16.4.1976 (Annexure P.2) as well as the order dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure P.13).;