M/S. SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

                         (2014) 8 S.C.R. 616


A                  M/S. SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD.
                                   v.
                     STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2014)

B                          APRIL 22, 2014

        [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

          Town Planning - Municipal Committee framed new town
    planning scheme as per which, a part of land covered by
C   appellant's hotel was required for construction/ widening of
    road - Notice received by appellant - Writ petition filed by
    appellant challenging the notice - Dismissed by High Court
    on ground that the scheme had attained finality and
    objections of appellant were a/so considered uls.192(1}(c) of
D   the Act and taken to logical conclusion - Meanwhile, in the
    case of Yogender Pal, s.192(1)(c) of the Act was declared as
    void, being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Overruling
    of the provision was made prospective and cases where the
    Scheme was already finalised, remained protected - On facts,
E   question as to whether the Scheme in question had been
    finalised or not - Held: Answer to the issue as to whether the
    Scheme had attained finality depended upon another issue
    viz. whether objections of the appellant to the Scheme were
    disposed of or not - It is borne from the record that objections
F   of appellant were duly considered and then specifically
    rejected by the Municipal Committee - Main objection was
    for payment of compensation which was rejected on the
    ground that the land under the road and the parks does not
    form more than 25% and, therefore, in view of s.192 of the Act,
G   no compensation was payable - Demarcation was a/so
    carried out - However, as per demarcation Report of Patwari,
    30 feet road as set out in the Town Planning Scheme did not
    exist in the revenue record - At the same time, correct
    position at the site a/so not on record - Requirement of fresh
H                                 616
  SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                617

demarcation at the site through Patwari - On basis of said       A
demarcation, if it is found that in the revenue record 30 feet
road exists, that area be clearly demarcated and delineated,
and thereafter the Scheme be implemented - Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911 - s.192(1)(c) - Haryana Municipal Act,
1973 - s.203(1)(c).                                              B

     The Municipal Commi.ttee framed a new Town
Planning Scheme as per which, a part of land covered by
appellant's hotel was required for construction I widening
of road. The appellant received notice from the successor
of the Municipal Corporation- respondent No. 2, directing        C
the appellant to leave. the street in terms of the Town
Planning Scheme. The appellant filed writ petition
challenging the notice contending that as the Scheme
was not implemented for the last more than 30 years and
objections filed by the appellant had not been decided,          D
the Scheme had lapsed and Respondent No. 2 had no
authority to implement the same. The Hig!'t Court
dismissed the writ petition holding that the Scheme had
attained finality and the objections of the appellant were
also considered under the provisions of Section 192              E
(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act and taken to logical
conclusion; and thereafter it could not be said that the
Scheme had not become final and could not be
implemented now.
                                                                 F
     Meanwhile, in the case of Yogender Pal, the
appellants succeeded in their challenge to Section
192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act which was declared
as void, being violative of Article 14 o·f the Constitution.
The aforesaid provision was held to be unconstitutional          G
as under this provision, to implement a Scheme, land of
the landowner could be taken away without even paying
any compensation. At the same time, the overruling of this
provision was made prospective. The Court was mindful
of the fact that there would be cases where the Schemes
had been implemented and constructions etc. had already          H
    618      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A been carried out in terrris of the Scheme and these
  Schemes which w~re already carried out were, thus,
  protected.
      In the said scenario, the question which arose for
  consideration before this Court was as to whether in the.
8
  present case the Scheme in question had been finalised
  or not.

          Disposing of the appeal, the Court
c        HELD:1.1. In the present case, when the new Town
    planning Scheme was framed in the year 1975, to
    implement the same, the Municipal Committee issued
    notice to the appellant on 7.6.1978 ·tor demolition of
    boundary WC!ll of the hotel and transfer the same to the
0 Committee, which was required for the r-0ad. The
    ap·pellant challenged the same by filing the writ petition
   ·in the High Court. In fact various Town Planning Schemes
    framed by the Municipal Committees of Amritsar and
    Bhatinda were the subject matter of challenge before the
E High Court by way of various Civil Writ Petitions. These
    were disposed of by a common order dated 16.1.1980. It
    was made clear that the provisions of the Scheme insofar ·
    as they affect the rights of the writ petitioners, will not be
    taken to be final and the said provisions will only become
F final after"the objections filed by the appellants are
    considered by the Committees and disposed of. A
    conjoint reading of the judgment in Yogender Pal decided
    by this Court as well as judgment dated 16.1.1980 by
    which aforesaid writ petitions were decided by the High
    Court would make it clear .that in those cases where the
G · Scheme had been finalised, they remain protected and
    Respondent No. 2 s!lall have right to go ahead with the
    implementation of the said Scheme. [Paras 18, 19] [628-
    8-F]

H         1.2. The answer to the issue as to whether the
   SEPAL HOTEL PVT. ..t_TD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                619

                                                       .
  Scheme had attained finality depends upon another issue             A
 viz. whether objections of the appellant to the Scheme
  were disposed of by Respondent No. 2 or not. It is borne
 from the record that these objections were duly
  considered. The objections of the appellant regarding
  demarcation were reje·cted: At the same time it was                 B
  decided that verification be done at the spot and in case
 there is any mistake in the plan of the Scherrie, the same
  be got rectified. It was so done. Thereafter, matter came
  up before the Municipal Committee and after considering
  the entire matter the Committee specifically rejected the           c
  objections of the appellant. It is clear that objections were
  specifically rejected. Only thing which the Municipal
  Committee wanted was to check the plan of Sepal Hotel
  as sanctioned by the Municipal Committee at the spot
  and after insp~cting the spot the survey plan be
                                                                      0
  corrected. It is also clear that main objection was for
  payment of compensation which was rejected on the
  ground that the land under the road and the parks does
 .not form more than 25% and, therefore, in view of Section
  192 of the Act no compensation was payable. It cannot
  be said that objections of the appellant were still pending.        E
  The only issue w~ich remained. was about the
  demarcation and demarcation was also carried out and
 Ille Patwari submitted his Report. This demarcation report
 bas altered the position. As per the demarcation Report
J~f.the Patwari, 30 feet road as set out in the Town                  F
 P!anning Scheme does not exist in the revenue record.
 ~ce. that be the position, how the Scheme would be
·it\pterriented is the poser. The High Court has remarked
 .ll'lt the 'appellant managed to get a wrong Report. At the
 •am' time.wha~. is the cQrrect p~sitiO.n at the site has also        G
 f)9t ~bme ·o.n. record. tn· ~·· situatfon.Uke this, once. the High
  Court observed thaf there was an error in the
; ~,mar¢atiQn. Repo'rt~ ·more appropriate act~ort was to
: o.rder fres~ :demarcat.ipp; [Paras 29, ~o. 31, 33, 34] [s3i~
 f·H; 633•A; 634-E-F; 63S·B·E}                                        H
    620      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A         1.3. The order of the High Court is modified to the
    extent that there shall be fresh demarcation done at the
    site through Patwari. On the basis of said demarcation, if
    it is found that in the revenue record 30 feet road exists,
    that area will be clearly demarcated and delineated, and
B   thereafter the Scheme would be implemented. [Para 35]
    635-F]
          Yogender Pal & Ors. v. Municipality, Bhatinda 1994 (5)
    SCC 709: 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 693 - referred to.                 .

c                        Case Law Reference :
          1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 693 referred to            Para 2
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4678 of 2014.
D         From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2006 of the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ
    Petition No. 19790 of 2004.
        Nidesh Gupta, Rajiv K. Garg, Vineet Garg, Ashish Garg,
E   Annam D.N. Rao for the Appellant.
        Mahabir Singh, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AAG, Nikhil Jain,
    Gagan Deep Sharma, Preeti Singh, Saurabh Singhal, Kuldip
    Singh for the Respondents.
F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. The origin of the lis in this appeal can be treated to
    earlier proceedings which started sometime in 1970's and
G   culminated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogender
    Pal & Ors. v. Municipality, Bhatindr:J reported in 1994 (5) SCC
    709. We would revert back to the said case with detailed
    discussion at the appropriate stage, Suffice it is to mention at
    the stage that vide the said judgment this Court declared
H   Section 192 (1) (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act {This provision
        SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    621
                     [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
     conforms to Section 203 (1) (c) of the Haryana Municipal Act}          A
     as void, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
     However, overruling of the said provision was prospective i.e.
     from the date of the decision rendered on 15.7.1994.

          3. Coming to the facts of the present case, Shri Som B
     Chand Katia and Shri Vijay Katia were original owners of land
     measuring 44 bighas 6 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 2001
     situated at Bhatinda. Out of the said land a part comprising of
     255 fts x 450 fts was licensed to the appellant for construction
     of a 3 Star Hotel on 15.7.1974. The appellant applied for grant
     of layout plan for the construction of a hotel, which was granted C
     by the Municipal Committee. After the receipt of the layout plan
     the appellant herein constructed the hotel on the said land.
     Since then the hotel has been in existence and running its
     business therefrom. The total area of the hotel was covered by
     a boundary wall and is in possession of the appellant herein. D

,·         4. The Municipal Committee framed a new Scheme i.e
     Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I, in the year 1975. This
     Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government. As per the
     said Scheme, a part of the land covered by the Appellant's hotel E
     was required for the construction/widening of the road. The
     Municipal Committee issued a notice dated 7 .6.1978 to the
     appellant herein directing the appellant to demolish the
     boundary wall of the hotel and transfer that part of the land to
     the Municipal Committee. Apprehending an action at the behest F
     of the Municipal Committee, the appellant filed a suit for grant
     of injunction against execution of the aforesaid notice. The
     Counsel for the Committee appeared and gave an undertaking
     not to demolish the boundary wall and based on this statement
     the said suit was withdra:wn on 5.12.1979. However, the G
     Municipal Committee again threatened to demolish the
     boundary wall, thereby impelling the appellant to file another
     suit, being No. 386 dated 18.12.1979. This suit was decreed
     on 11.12.1981 with an observation that Town Planning Scheme
     qua the appellant having not finalised, therefore, the land
                                                                            H
    622      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2014] 8 S.C.R.

A   belonging to the appellant could not vest in the Municipal
    Committee.

          5. At the same time, the appellant also challenged the vires
    of Section 192 (1) (c) of the Municipal Act by way of a Writ
    Petition No. 226 of 1979. The said Writ Petition was disposed
8
    of by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court on
    16.1.1980 alongwith other connected matters whereby it
    directed the Committee to consider the objections of affected
    landowners under the provisions of Section 192 (1) (c) of the
    Act which would be filed within 12 weeks before the Committee
C   and the Committee would then proceed to consider the said
    objection and dispose them of within three months. Thereafter;
    it could make a recommendation to the Government in
    accordance with provisions of Section 192 of the Act. It was
    made clear that till the objections are decided, the rights of the
D   landowners would not be affected. However, it was stated that
    if the objections were rejected the provisions of Scheme'shalf
    become final and shall be forwarded to the State Government
    for amending the Scheme in accordance with law.

E         6. As per the directions, the appellant filed its objections
    before the Municipal Committee, stating therein that as per the
    measurement at the spot, the road which starts from 40 feet.
    wide Namdev Road and proposes to connect 30 feet wide road
    at the end of the hotel boundary and which passes through
F   Khasra No. 2001 is at a distance 6f 275 feet but was wrongly
    shown in the Scheme at 224 feet. So, it was requested that the
    said discrepancy in the Scheme be corrected so that there is
    no dispute. The above objections of the appellant were
    considered by the Municipal CommiUee and a Resolution No.
G   306 dated 9. 7 .1980 was passed. The relevant· portion
    concerning the objections of the petitioner in Item No. 11 is as
    under:

          "Item No. 11:

H         Vide this objection, the objector had stated that for joining
   SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  623
                [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
    the 30 feet and 40 feet wide road, the length of the road       A
    has been shown as per the Sctieme as 224 feet whereas
    at the spot th~ length is 275 feet. Therefore. it was decided
    that the plan of the Sepal Hotel. which has been sanctioned
    by the Municipal Committee be checked at the site and
    after inspecting the site as per the objections raised by the   B
    objector. the survey plan of the one part be corrected. The
    aforesaid resolution was signed by Shri Gopal Singh,
    President, Municpal Committee, Bathinda, Mukhtiar Singh,
    Divisional Town Planner, Bathinda and Shri L.D. Gupta,
    Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Bathinda.               c
    7. As per the appellant, after passing of the above
Resolution dated 9.7.1980, no further action was taken by the
Municipal Committee to amend the Scheme nor any
communication was received by the appellant conveying its
decision by the Municipal Committee with regard to the              D
objections.

     8. In the meantime, the suit bearing no. 386 of 1979 was
decreed on 11.12.1981, wherein it was observed by the
learned Senior Sub~Judge that the Town Planning Scheme qua          E
the appellant had not becon:ie final and, therefore, the subject
land cannot vest in the Municipal Committee and the disputed
land on which construction exists cannot be said to belong to
the Municipal Committee.
                                                                    F
     9.The appellant filed another Civil Suit bearing no. 641/
1983 against the Municipal Committee for permanent injunction
not to demolish .four rooms, which are in the premises of the
hotel itself. However, the said suit was dismissed and the
appellant herein filed an appeal before the learned District
Judge, Bhatinda, which was withdrawn upon the statements of         G
the Counsel for the parties. It was agreed that demarcation of
the disputed rooms be made in the presence of the parties to
verify as to whether the same are part of the street or not. The
demarcation of the disputed rooms was to be made in the
                                                                    H
                                                  -   --   ~   -

    624    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   presence of the parties. Municipal Committee was restrained
    to demolish the rooms till demarcation· is completed.

       10. Pursuant to the above order, Shri Hem Raj, Patwari,
  Halqua carried out the demarcation of the disputed rooms and ·
  submitted his report dated 19'8.1986 to the Tehsildar on the
8
  basis of which an order was passed wherein it was held that
  there ex.ists no passage or roads in Khasra No. 2001 in the
  revenue report. In the meantime, the provisions of Section 192
  (1) (c) of the Act were interpreted by this Court in the case of
C Yogendra Pal (supra) in which Section 192 (1) (c) providing
  vesting of land in the Municipal Committee was declared ultra
  vires and, therefore, these provisions were struck down w.e.f.
  the judgment i.e. 15.7.1994.

        11. However, the matter did not rest there .. The appellant
D received notice dated 9.9.2003 from the successor of the
  Municipal Corporation- Respondent No. 2, directing the
  appellant to leave the street within 10 days in terms of the same
  Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I, framed in the.year 1977.
  The appellant sent reply dated 16.9.2003 which was followed
E by another reply dated 27.9.2003. It is the case of the appellant
  that without considering these ·replies, Respondent No. 2
  issued notice dated 9.10.2004. to the appellant under Sections
  246 and 246A of the Act seeking to leave 30 feet street as per
  the Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I, on or before
F 13.10.2003. The appellant replied to that notice on 13.10.2004
  alleging that the proposed action was illegaland amounted to
  the abuse of powers. Immediately thereafter the appellant also
  filed the Writ Petition No. 16377 of 2004 on 13.10.2004 in the .
  High Courtseeking quashing of the.said notice dated
G 9.10.2004 and that the Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Part I be ...
  declared as lapsed due to non-implementation. As per the .
  appellant, this planning Scheme was not implemented _even
  after 30 years of framing and had, therefore, lapsed. However, .
  the appellant withdrew this writ petition on 30.11.2004 with
  liberty to file fresh petitions. Fresh petition No. 19790 of 2004
H                                ~
                                                                   /
    SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  62~
                 [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
 was filed on 15.12.2004 challenging the said notice dated A
 9.5.2004. This Writ Petition has been dismissed by the High
 Court Vide judgmenf dated 2.5.2006. That judgment is
 impugned by filing Special Leave Petition under Article 136,
 out of.which present appeal arises.
                                                                     B
         12. As pointed out above main contention of the appellant
   before the High Court was that as the Scheme was not
   implemented for the last more than 30 years and objections
   filed by the appellant had not been decided, the said Scheme
 , had lapsed and Respondent No. 2 had no authority to
1 implement the same.•This contention has not found favour with C
1 the "High Court. The High Court took note of the fact that the
   appellant had earlier filed Civil Writ No. 226 of 1979 in the said
   court challenging that very Scheme. That writ petition along with
   many other similar writ p.etitions, were disposed of holding that
   the Scheme under challenge was rightly promulgated after D
   passing an appropriate Resolution. Matter was remitted to
   Respondent No. 2 to decide objections, if any filed by the
   appellant and others similarly situated persons, witti clear
   direction that in case the objections.are rejected, the provision
   of the Scheme shall become final:                                  E

        13. The High Court further noted that in order.to dispose
  of objections filed by various individuals, matter was put up
  before the Municipal Committee on 9.7.1980. Many objections
  were disposed of including Objection Nos. 10 and 11 ,which F
  were filed by the Managing Director of the appellant and' the
   appellant respectively. In so far as objections of the appellant
   are concerned, it was ordered that to ascertain length of road
   left in the Scheme, measurement be done· at the spot.
  Therefore, the only dispute which remained was with respeCt G
   to measurement.of the property at the spot.As such the
   appellant was not right in contending that its objections were
  ·not disposed of and were still pending. The High Court also
   went through the record and discussed the same. On that
   basis, the High. Court has further observed that some ·
                                                                    H
    626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) a· S.C.R.


A   demarcation was got done by the appellant from the Revenue
    Department on the basis of aks - Shajra. In that report, it was
    observed that there is no street in Khasra No. 2001, in which
    Hotel of the appellant is situated. However, the High Court
    chose to discard that Report got prepared by the appellant,
s   giving following reasons

          ''The appelfant is now placing reliance upon the said
          demarcation report to say that there existed no street
          which, as per allegation of respondent no. 2 has been
          encroached by the appellant. No benefif of that report can
c         be extended to appellant, as the demarcation was not
          done keeping in view the Town Planning· Scheme. Report
          seems to have been made on wrong facts. Admittedly in
          revenue record, the street is not in existence as the same
          has been carved out only in the approved Scherrre, which
D         is under challenge. Thereafter, when notice was sent to the
          petitioner to remove encroachment .from the sfreet, he
          again tried to delay the matter and subsequent thereto,
          fifed the present writ petition".

E         14. On the basis of these facts as recorded by the High
    Court, it came to the conclusion that the challenge to the
    Scheme had attained finaHty and the objections were also
    considered and taken    to logical conclusion. Nothing remained
    thereafter and it could not be said that the Scheme had nof
F   become final and cannot be implemented now. To recapitulate
    in brief, the High Court has in the impugned order recorded that'

          i. The demarcation report seems to be made on wrong·
          facts and that in the· reventie record ·there was no street. ·

G         ii. It was turther wrongly recorded that the earlier writ
          petition had been dismissed by the High Court on
          16.1.1980.

          iii. With regard to the appellate order dated 20.5.1986, it
          was held that pursuant to the said order, the Managing
H
  SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 627
               [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
    Director of the Petitioner "managed to get a wrong report",    A
    i.e. the demarcation report dated 19.8.1986.

    iv. Finally, the High Court held that the Scheme had
    attained finality in view of the judgment of the Civil Court
    and the appeal had been dismissed as withdrawn and,            B
    therefore, it was not open to the appellant to say that the
    Scheme had not become final and could not be
    implemented after a period of 30 years.

    These are the reasons given by the High Court for .
dismissing the writ petition.                           C
      15. Before we proceed to record the submissions of the
counsel on either side, we would like to point out the ratio of
Yogender Pal (supra) mention to which has been made in the
beginning. As pointed out above that was a case where the 0
vires of Section 192 (1) (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act were
challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and the appellants therein succeed in their challenge. Aforesaid
provision was held to be unconstitutional as under this provision, .
to implement a Scheme land of the landowner could be taken E
away without even paying any compensation. At the same time,
it is noteworthy that the overruling of this provision was made
prospective i.e. from the date of the decision rendered on
15.7.1994.

      16. It was noticed in para 29 that various lands had been F
acquired for Town Planing Schemes and "in many cases the
Schemes have also been completed." In view of the said fact,
it was held that it would not be in public interest to unsettle the
settled state of affairs as it would create a total chaos. The court
was, therefore, mindful of the fact that there would be cases G
where the Schemes had been implemented and constructions
etc. had already been carried out in terms of the Scheme.
Those Schemes which were already carried out were, thus,
protected.
                                                                   H
    628     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A        17. It is, in this scenario the moot question which falls for
    consideration is as to whether in the present case the Scheme
    in question had been finalised or not.

         18. When the Scheme in the present case were framed
    in the year 1975 to implement the same, the Municipal
8
    Committee issued notice to the appellant on 7.6.1978 for
    demolition of boundary wall of the hotel and transfer the same
    to the Committee, which was required for the road. The
    appellant challenged the same by filing the writ petition in the
    High Court. In fact various Town Planning Schemes framed by
C   the Municipal Committees of Amritsar and Bhatinda were the
    subject matter of challenge before the High Court by way of
    various Civil Writ Petitions. These were disposed of by a
    common order dated 16.1.1980. It was made clear that the
    provisions of the Scheme in so far as they affect the rights of
D   the writ petitioners, will not be taken to be final and the said
    provisions will only become final after the objections filed by the
    appellants are considered by the Committees and disposed
    of.

E        19. Thus, a conjoint reading of the judgment in Yogender
    Pal (Supra) decided by this Court as well as judgment dated
    16.1.1980 by which aforesaid writ petitions were decided by
    the High Court would make it clear that in those cases where
    the Scheme had been finalised, they remain protected and
F   Respondent No. 2 shall have right to go ahead with the
    implementation of the said Scheme.

        20. It is the common case of the parties that the High Court
    had permitted the appeltants and others to file their objections
    and the Scheme was to become final only after the objections
G   were considered by the Committee and disposed of. However,
    whereas Respondent No. 2 maintains that the objections of the
    appellants were disposed of/ rejected, the appellant argues
    otherwise and it is pleaded that the matter remained in limbo
    without any decision on its objections. The outcome of the
H   present appeal would depend upon this aspect.
  SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     629
               [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
     21. In his endeavour to demonstrate that no final decision A
was taken on the objections of the appellant Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that these
objections were considered on 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980. A
perusal of the proceedings dated 30.6.1980 makes it clear that
it was decided "that verification be done at the spot and in case B
there is any mistake in the plan of the Scheme, the same be
got rectified." The objection regarding the demarcation was
rejected by placirig reliance on Section 192 of the Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911, which permitted land to the extent of 25%
to be taken without payment of compensation and additional c
10% to be taken after payment of compensation.

    22. In the proceeding dated 9.7.1980 the claim of the
appellant for compensation was noticed and the said objection
was rejected. However, it was also decided that the plan of
Sepal Hotel as sanctioned by the Municipal Committee would D
be checked and after inspecting the spot, survey plan would
be corrected in view of the objection of the objector. .

     23. In the meantime, Civil "Suit No. 386 of 1979 filed by
the appellant herein was also decided. A perusal of the                E
judgment dated 11.12.1981 in the suit makes it clear that the
contention of the counsel for the appellant herein that the
objections had to be considered, was not disputed by the
counsel of the Municipal Committee and "he conceded that the
Scheme framed by the Municipal Committee has not yet                   F
become final.• It was also held that "it is obvious from copies
of resolution that the Municipal Committee is seized of the
objections filed by the plaintiff."

     24. As per Mr. Gupta, this makes it clear that even after
the resolutions of30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980, the objections of the G
plaintiff were, admittedly, yet to be decided and the Scheme
had not yet become final.

    25. It is further submitted that since in spite of the aforesaid
orders, the Municipal Committee was seeking to pursue the              H
    630       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A  action under the Scheme without dec:iding the objections,
   another Suit No. 64 of 23.12.1983 was filed by the appellant
   herein. After the suit had been dismissed, the appellate court
   passed a consent order dated 20.5.1986 wherein it was agreed
   that the appeal will be dismissed as withdrawn and an
B ·application for demarcation will be subm1tted within a month.
   The Municipal Committee agreed that demarcation shall be
   made in the presence of the parties and they will not demolish
   the disputed rooms till the demarcation-was done. The appeal
   was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the said statement.
c         26. Thereafter, a demarcation was done on 19.8.1986. A
    perusal of the same makes it clear that it was noticed therein
    that there was no street falling in the concerned Khasra number
    as per the revenue record and, therefore, the street could not
    be demarcated.
D
         27. Mr. Gupta, questioned the correctne~s of the finding
    of the impugned order by making the following submissions:

          i. The order dated 16.1.1980 categorically records that the
          provisions of the Scheme in so far as they affect the rights
E
          of the petitioners will not be final and the provisions will only
          become final after the objections filed by the appellant are
          considered by the committee and disposed of.

          ii. A p~usal of the proceedings dated 30.6.1980 and
F         8. 7.1980 makes it clear that the objections were still
          pending and demarcation etc. had still to be carried out.·

          iii. This fact stood admitted in the order dated 11.12.1981
          wherein the counsel for the Municipal Committee had
G         conceded that the Scheme framed had not yet become
          final and that the Municiapl Committee was seized of the
          objections.

          iv. It is submitted that after the aforesaid date, the only
          progress was the report dated 19.8.1986, as per which
H         report the demarcation of the street could not be done
   SEPAL HOTEL .PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       631
                 [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
     since there was no street as per the revenue record.                  A
     Assuming there was an error in the said demarcation, at
     best a fresh demarcation could have been ordered. In any
     event, it could not be said that the Scheme had been
     finalised, as recorded by the High Court.
                                                                           B
     v. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate court
     dated 20.5.1986 also makes it absolutely clear that it was
     agreed that there will no demolition till the demarcation
     was done. Accordingly, without any demarcation having
     admittedly been done thereafter, there was no question of             C
     the Scheme having become final.

      vi. That the aforesaid facts are further reinforced for a
      con.Sideration of the agenda item dated 27.12.1995,
      pursu"ant to the judgment of this court. A perusal of the
      resolution makes it clear that the Municipal Committee had           D
      "decided that the Schemes which are pending are hereby
      dropped by the Municipal Council, Bathinda and the office
      is directed to act accordingly." Thus, all pending Schemes
      stand dropped as per the aforesaid resolution.
                                                                           E
       28. Per contra, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior
 Counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation, Bhatinda
'(Respondent No. 2) submitted that the judgment in the case of
 Vogender Pal had no applicability as the law declared therein
 was made prospective by observing that it would not be in public          F
 interest to unsettle the settled state of affairs. It was, thus, a case
"of prospective overruling. He further submitted that as per the
 judgment dated 16.1.1980 of the High Court, the provisions of
 the Scheme were not to become final unless the objections filed
 by the appellants are ·disposed of by the Committee. A
 fortiorari, the Scheme was to attain finality if the objections were      G
 to be rejected and that was specially observed by the High
 Court. Countering the submissions that the objections had not
 been decided/ rejected Mr. Mahabir Singh argued that these
 objections were specifically rejected by the Municipal
 Committee way back on 30.6.1980 and on 9.7.1980. He further               H
    632      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014) 8 S.C.R.

A submitted that this rejection was never challenged by the
  appellant. Instead he preferred a civil suit for permanent
  injunction which was, however, dismissed on 4.11.1985. A·
  reading of this order would reveal that the objections were duly
  considered by the Committee and the same were dismissed.
B Even appeal was tiled against this judgment and decree of the
  trial court but the appellant withdrew the same and, therefore,.
  finding of the trial court that objections were rejected had
  become final. His further plea was that these are pure finding
  of facts which have been arrived at against the appellant who
c has dragged on the matter for last 30 years after successfully
  encroaching upon the land which was duly carved under Town
  Planning Scheme for public street. He further submitted that the
  appellant had suppressed all these proceedings including filing
  of Civil Writ No. 19812 of 1996 which was subsequently
  withdrawn by him.
0
          29. We have given our anxious thought to the aforesaid
  submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It is a common
  case of the parties that the judgment in Yogender Pal (Supra)
  is prospective i.e from the date of judgment whieh is 15.7 .1994. ,
E It is also a common case of the parties that the Scheme in
  question was framed much earlier. Thus, as pointed out above,'
  the only issue is as to whether,the Scheme had attained finalitY
  and answer to this questioh (tepends upon another issue viz.•
  whether objections of the appellant to the Scheme were
F disposed of by Respondent No. 2 or not, in compliance with
  directions dated 19,6.1980 of the High Court.
                                                                    "·
       30 .. It is borne from the record that these objections were·
  duly considered on 30.6.1980 and 8.7.1980. In the proceedings
G of 30.6.1980 objections of the appellant regarding demarcation
  were rejected. At the same time it was decided that verification
  be done at the spot and in case there is any mistake in the plan
  of the Scheme, the same be got rectified. It was so done.
  Thereafter, matter came up before the Committee on 9.7.1980
H and after considering the entire matter the Committee
  SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   633
               [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
specifically rejected the objections of the appellant. Operative     A
portion of the minutes of the meeting dated 30.6, 1980 as well
as 9.7.1980 are as under:

    "Minutes of the Meeting dated 30.6.1980:

    Shri Som Chand Katia, Writ Petitioner No. 226/79 is              B
    present. He has stated that his total land measuring 31550
    sq. yards is covered under the Scheme and his land to the
    extent of 35% has been taken under the Scheme and
    some of his land thus goes waste. The objector has been
    asked to get the demarcation of the total land at the spot       C
    and produce the plan in the office of Municipal Committee
    by 7. 7 .1980 and should also get the spot inspection of the
    land so that in spot inspection it could be verified as to how
    much of his land falls under the Scheme. In case any area
    more than 25% of his total land comes under the park/            D
    road, ttie same may be adjusted. The objector has stated
    that he is not ready to give any land for road or park without
    compensation. Thus objection of the objector is rejected
    because under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act,
    1911 land to the extent of 25% without payment of                E
    compensation and an additional 10% with payment of
    compensation can be taken for the purpose or roads and
    parks under the proposed Town Planning Scheme."

    Minutes of the Meeting dated 9.7.1980
                                                                     F
     "As per decision dated 30.6.1980, the objector Shri Som
     Chand Katia was required to get the measurement of his
     land at the spot. He has produced a photostat copy of
     revenue record relating to Khasra No. 2001 which has
     been attested by Halqa Patwari. As per the same, their G
    ·total area in the Scheme comes to 44300 sq. yards. The
     plea of objector is that the Sepaf Hotel whose area is
     12750 sq. yards has different out of the total area and the
     land for roads and parks be taken out of .the remaining
     area as per law. But he should be given compensation of H
     634       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 8 S.C.R.

 A         the same as well. On perusal of record, it is found that
           sanction of building plan of Sepal Hotel has. also been given
           to them who were the original owners of total land. Therefore,
           the Sepal Hotel had also been adjusted in the Scheme.
           Therefore, the Sepal Hotel had also been adjusted in the
           Scheme. Therefore, it is decided that the plot of Sepal Hotel
 B
           cannot be treated to be different from the land belonging to ·
           the said family under the purposes of Scheme and in this way .
           out of total ownership land, the land under the road and parks
           does not form more than 25% which is as per law, therefore,
           this objection is rejected.
 c
           Therefore, in this objection, the objector has written that the
           length of road joining the 30' x 40' wide roads has been
           shown to be 224 under the Scheme whereas the sport the
           same is 275. therefore, it is decided that plan of the Sepal ·
 D         Hotel as sanctioned by Municipal Committee be checked
           at the spot and after inspecting the spot survey plan be got
           corrected in view of the above objection of objector."
           31. It is clear from the above that objections were
    . specifically rejected. Only thing which the Municipal Committee
  E .wanted was to check the plan of Sepal Hotel as sanctioned by
      the Municipal Committee at the spot and after.inspecting the ,
      spot the survey plan be corrected. It is also clear from the above .
      that main objection was for payment of compensation which
      was rejected on the ground that the land under the road and ·
  F the parks does not form more than 25% and, therefore, in view
      of Section 192 of the Act 110 compensation was payable:
            32. Learned Senior C6J..insel for the respont:fent is right in
      his submission that these orders were not challenged. Instead:
      the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 614 of 1983. However, this suit
· G was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant preferred appeal .
    · there against. This appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It was
      the contention ·Of the appellant that this appeal was withdrawn
      in view of consent order dated 20.5. ~ 986 wherein it was agreed .
      that an application for demarcation will be submitted .within a
  H month and demarcation shall b.e made in the f)resence of the
   SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  635
                [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

 parties and till then respondent shall not demolish the disputed A
  rooms_. However, from this the appellant cannot be allowed to
  contend that objections had not been decided. The at the most,
•·issue of demarcation was to be settled as the appellant was
:·raising this issue time and again. However, it is accepted by
  the appellant itself that demarcation was done on 19.8.1986. B
       33. From the aforesaid, we cannot agree with the
  contention of the appellant that objections of the appellant were
'still pending. At the same time it becomes clear that the only
  issue which remained was about the demarcation and
  demarcation was also carried out and the Patwari submitted         c
  his Report dated 19.8.1986.
        34. Having said so, what we find is that this demarcation
  report has altered the position. As per the demarcation Report
  of the PatWari, 30 feet road as set out in the Town Planning
 ·scheme does not existin the revenue record. Once that be the 0
  position, how the Scheme would be implemented is the poser.
  The High Court has remarked that the appellant managed to
  get a. wrong Report. At the same time, what is ·the correct
  position at the site has also not come on record. In a situation
  like this, we are of the opinion that once the High Court E
  observed that there was an error in the demarcation Report,
  more approp(iate action was to order fresh demarcation.
        35. In view of the above though we reject all the contentions
  of the appellant, at the same time we modify the order of the ·
  High Court to the extent that there shall be fresh demarcation F
·done at the site through Patwari. On the basis of said
  demarcation, if it is found that in the revenue record 30 feet
  road exists, that area will be clearly demarcated and
'delineated, and thereafter the Scheme would be implemented.
  The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of
:two months from today. The appellant shall be associated in G
 .the exercise of demarcation. Once this demarcation, is done
 )he parties shall abide by the same.
       36.. Appeal disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                           Appeal disposed of.
                                                                     H