The State of Haryana. Vs. Nariani Devi & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1227 Of 1984.
Petitioner: The State of Haryana.
Respondent: Nariani Devi & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1227 Of 1984.
Judges: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 04, 1987
Head Note:
PUNJAB TOWN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1922:
Section 44-A – Punjab Town Improvement (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 (Haryana Act No.12 of 1985) – Notification extending the period for execution of the Scheme by three years – Constitutional validity of amendment and notification – parties at liberty to approach the High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the amended provision and the notification.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court has held as follows:
“It is held unanimously : That Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 inflexibly provides for a period of five years for the completion and accomplishment of the Scheme from the date of its notification under Section 42 of the Act unless duly extended by the State Government under the proviso thereto:
That the writ petition must succeed and is hereby allowed with costs.”
2. At the hearing of these cases learned counsel for the appellants have brought to our notice that subsequent to the Judgment of the High Court Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, has been amended by the Punjab Town Improvement (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 (Haryana Act No.12 of 1985) and a notification has been issued by the State Government under sub-Section (2) of Section 44-A of the Punjab Town and Improvement Act, 1922 on 28-10-1986 extending the period for execution of the Scheme which is the subject matter of these proceedings by a period of three years from the date of the said notification. Under the notification it is open to the Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri to complete the Scheme within 28-10-1989. In view of the above notification we feel that the Judgment of the High Court should be set aside. Shri Harbans Lal, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the respondents are aggrieved by the amendment of the Act and also the notification issued thereunder and they now propose to challenge the constitutional validity of the above amended provision and the notification. He has also brought to our notice that Writ Petition No. 285/1987 has been filed in this Court questioning the constitutional validity of the amendment and the notification. In these circumstances, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court without expressing any opinion on its correctness reserving liberty to the parties to challenge the constitutional validity of the amended provision and the notification if they are so advised.
3. We express no opinion on the correctness of the contentions of the parties. The Writ Petition No. 285 of 1987 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court if the parties are so advised. The appeals and the Writ petition are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
1. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court has held as follows:
“It is held unanimously : That Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 inflexibly provides for a period of five years for the completion and accomplishment of the Scheme from the date of its notification under Section 42 of the Act unless duly extended by the State Government under the proviso thereto:
That the writ petition must succeed and is hereby allowed with costs.”
2. At the hearing of these cases learned counsel for the appellants have brought to our notice that subsequent to the Judgment of the High Court Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, has been amended by the Punjab Town Improvement (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 (Haryana Act No.12 of 1985) and a notification has been issued by the State Government under sub-Section (2) of Section 44-A of the Punjab Town and Improvement Act, 1922 on 28-10-1986 extending the period for execution of the Scheme which is the subject matter of these proceedings by a period of three years from the date of the said notification. Under the notification it is open to the Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri to complete the Scheme within 28-10-1989. In view of the above notification we feel that the Judgment of the High Court should be set aside. Shri Harbans Lal, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the respondents are aggrieved by the amendment of the Act and also the notification issued thereunder and they now propose to challenge the constitutional validity of the above amended provision and the notification. He has also brought to our notice that Writ Petition No. 285/1987 has been filed in this Court questioning the constitutional validity of the amendment and the notification. In these circumstances, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court without expressing any opinion on its correctness reserving liberty to the parties to challenge the constitutional validity of the amended provision and the notification if they are so advised.
3. We express no opinion on the correctness of the contentions of the parties. The Writ Petition No. 285 of 1987 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court if the parties are so advised. The appeals and the Writ petition are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
