Public acquisition notice and stadium-access scheme upheld where statutory publication, public purpose, and safety outweighed private hardship.

Under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, failure to serve personal notice did not invalidate the acquisition where the Scheme had been duly published, notice had been given to the Municipality, and the authority had no duty to repeatedly search registration records for later transfers. The acquisition was not shown to be mala fide, and refusal of injunction against enforcement was upheld in the absence of any manifest error. The Scheme for direct stadium access was justified by public safety and convenience, and the appellant's private hardship was outweighed by the public purpose, though alternative residential accommodation was directed as compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to serve personal notice on the appellant under the acquisition procedure vitiated the proceedings, (ii) whether the acquisition was mala fide or the injunction against enforcement of the Scheme should be granted, and (iii) whether the Scheme framed for access to the stadium was properly justified despite the appellant's private hardship.

Issue (i): Whether failure to serve personal notice on the appellant under the acquisition procedure vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The notice requirement under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 is directed to persons whom the Trust, after due enquiry, has reason to believe to be owners or occupiers of the property proposed to be acquired. The Scheme had already been widely published and notice had been given to the Municipality before the appellant purchased the property. In the short interregnum between publication and approval, the authorities were not required to search the Sub-Registrar's office repeatedly to trace later transfers. The requirement was treated as satisfied on the facts, and constructive notice from registration was held inapplicable in that situation.

Conclusion: Failure to serve personal notice did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition was mala fide or the injunction against enforcement of the Scheme should be granted.

Analysis: No material established mala fides. The Scheme proceeded under a statutory authority acting for public purposes, and the courts below had also found no basis for injunctive relief. Grant of injunction was a matter of discretion, and no manifest error was shown in refusing to restrain implementation of the Scheme. The Court also noted that the suit's maintainability was doubtful, though it did not rest its decision on that point.

Conclusion: The acquisition was not mala fide and no injunction was warranted.

Issue (iii): Whether the Scheme framed for access to the stadium was properly justified despite the appellant's private hardship.

Analysis: The Scheme provided direct access from the main road to the stadium and avoided traffic hazards that would arise from opening access from the western internal road. The area acquired was minimal. The appellant's personal inconvenience was outweighed by the public purpose underlying the Scheme, though the Court directed the Trust to provide a suitable residential site as a compensatory measure.

Conclusion: The Scheme was properly framed and the public purpose justified the acquisition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds, and the acquisition Scheme was upheld, with a direction for alternative residential accommodation to mitigate the appellant's hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the statutory notice scheme, non-service of personal notice does not invalidate acquisition where the authority has acted on a duly published Scheme and has a reasonable basis to believe the relevant owner is already known or traceable after due enquiry; procedural requirements in such public acquisition may be treated as directory on the facts, especially where public interest predominates.

---