Skip to content


Jodh Singh and ors. Vs. the Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 2131 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H158
ActsPunjab Town Improvement Act - Sections 40 and 42(2)
AppellantJodh Singh and ors.
RespondentThe Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur and ors.
Excerpt:
.....appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. .....be quashed.2. in the return filed on behalf of the respondent-trust, it has been admitted that the objections filed by the petitioners got misplaced and, therefore, answering respondent being not in the know of any such objections obviously did not require the petitioners to appear for personal hearing.3. counsel appearing for the trust has fairly conceded to the quashing of the notification sanctioning the scheme in terms of sub-sec,. (2) of s. 42 of the act so far as it concerns the petitioners.4. in view of the ratio of the full bench in jodh singh v. jullundur improvement trust 1984 pun lj 413: (air 1984 pun & har 398), we quash the impugned notification issued under s. 42(2) in so far as it concerns the petitioners property and direct the improvement trust to consider the objections.....
Judgment:

D.S. Tewatia, J.

1. The case made out by the petitioners herein is that he submitted his objections against the acquisition of his property under S. 40 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that without considering his objections the sanction of the scheme had been notified under sub-sec (2) of S. 42 of the Act, that the sanction so accorded is vitiated and, therefore, so far as the petitioners is concerned, the said sanction be quashed.

2. In the return filed on behalf of the respondent-Trust, it has been admitted that the objections filed by the petitioners got misplaced and, therefore, answering respondent being not in the know of any such objections obviously did not require the petitioners to appear for personal hearing.

3. Counsel appearing for the Trust has fairly conceded to the quashing of the notification sanctioning the scheme in terms of sub-sec,. (2) of S. 42 of the Act so far as it concerns the petitioners.

4. In view of the ratio of the Full Bench in Jodh Singh V. Jullundur Improvement Trust 1984 Pun LJ 413: (AIR 1984 Pun & Har 398), we quash the impugned notification issued under S. 42(2) in so far as it concerns the petitioners property and direct the Improvement Trust to consider the objections filed by the petitioners after affording him due opportunity of hearing.

5. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200/-

6. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //