Judgment Swatantar Kumar, J. 1. All the petitioners in this petition are residents of Pathankot in the State of Punjab. They are owners of different Khewat, Khatauni and Khasra Numbers of the land situated in village Saili and Anandpur, subject matter of the present writ petition. Petitioner No. 1 owns 132 Kanals 1 Maria of land in revenue estate of village Anandpur while petitioners No.2 to 8 have their houses, land cattle sheds in the revenue estate of village Saili. The Pathankot Improvement Trust, Pathankot, hereinafter referred to as the Trust, issued a notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 upon holding a special meeting on 3,4.1971 for expansion of development scheme known as "Timber Market and Truck Stand etc.". This scheme was framed under Section 24/28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1921, referred in short as the Act. The land in dispute is situated within the Municipal limits of Pathankot. These lands were covered under the notification obviously with the object of developing the area in accordance with the integrated scheme afore-referred. Vide notification dated 11.6.1971 issued under Section 36 of the Act, the land measuring about 222 acres was acquired. This total area included the land in both the villages of Saili and Anandpur as specified in the notification annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/1. 2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Pathankot vide award No. 1 of 1976 decided on 2.6.1976 awarded compensation of different amounts to the different class of the land and for the super-structures raised thereupon. It is the case of the petitioners that no compensation has been received by them and they are in possession of the acquired land even presently. Number of residential and other buildings have already been constructed on the land in dispute, though some part of it is lying vacant and as such the scheme cannot be implemented. On these facts, the petitioners pray that the award dated 2.6.1976, Annexure P/3 to the writ petition, be quashed and all subsequent proceedings should also be set aside. 3. Upon notice, the respondent-trust has mainly contested the case and filed short written statement in this case. However, as recorded in the order dated 16.8.1996, the detailed written statement filed in other connected writ petition No.4998 of 1983 was directed to be read as a written statement in all the matters. 3. Upon notice, the respondent-trust has mainly contested the case and filed short written statement in this case. However, as recorded in the order dated 16.8.1996, the detailed written statement filed in other connected writ petition No.4998 of 1983 was directed to be read as a written statement in all the matters. Preliminary objection was taken with regard to maintainability of a petition jointly by all the petitioners. It is also averred that the acquisition of the land has already been up-held in the year 1987 and the pleas arising out of amendment of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act, were never raised at that time and as such the petitioners are estopped from raising any plea in that regard. The decision of the Supreme Court dated 12.3.1987 is binding on the parties and the writ petition is not maintainable. In reply to the facts on merits, it was stated that the possession of the land has been taken long time ago from except the persons who are litigating since so many years. All other averments were not specifically admitted by the respondents as the written statement filed is a very short one running into two pages only. According to the respondents, major part of the scheme has been implemented and a sum of Rs. 82,31,000/-has been spent on the implementation of the scheme i.e. construction of streets, roads and lighting etc. As alleged, the respondents have taken possession of the land but there were stay orders granted by the Civil Court and even by the High Court in relation to some of the land, as such that part of the land was never taken possession of. 4. I may also notice of this stage that during the pendency of this writ petition an application was filed on 5.1.1996 being C.M.No. 846 of 1995 with a prayer that certain subsequent events with regard to the construction on the area of acquired land and colonies have come up and prayer was also made to place on record certain photographs and a direction to the respondents to place on record the lay out plan. 5. In view of the above factual matrix that appears from the record, I proceed to discuss the merits of the contentions raised before us. 5. In view of the above factual matrix that appears from the record, I proceed to discuss the merits of the contentions raised before us. As far as the question of challenge to the notification is concerned, it cannot be subject matter of any controversy before this Court now. The matter is no more res-integra as it was answered on merits of the case inter se the parties by the Honble Apex Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly held that the acquisition of the land vide impugned notification was valid and proper. Once the validity of the notification has been up-held by the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.890 of 1986 in the case of Improvement Trust of Pathankot v. Kesar Singh, it also disposed of other connected appeals by passing the following order:- "In these cases the notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (which corresponds to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) was published on 11.6.1971 and the notification under Section 41 of the Act (which corresponds to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act) was published on 31.10.1973. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 2.6.1976. After the decision of Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., A.I.R. 1982 P&H 519; (1982)84 P.L.R. 743 (F.B.) (which we do not approve) and the decision in Amolak Singhs case 1982 P.L.J. 428 (which we do not approve) the respondents filed Writ Petitions in 1983 quashing the notifications and the award nearly seven years after award had been passed. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court without taking into consideration that they were hopelessly belated writ petitions but relying upon the two decisions referred to above. In Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1986 the Writ Petition was first allowed by the learned Singh Judge of the High Court and his order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. In Civil Appeal Nos. 891 of 1986 the Division Bench has allowed the Writ Petitions. These appeals by special leave are filed against the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court should have dismissed these writ petitions on the ground of laches. Even on merits we find that there was no substance in the writ petitions. These appeals by special leave are filed against the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court should have dismissed these writ petitions on the ground of laches. Even on merits we find that there was no substance in the writ petitions. We, therefore, set aside the judgments of the High Court in all these cases and dismiss the writ petitions filed before the High Court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Apex Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition primarily on the ground of delay and latches. The said order, in fact, does not deal with the merits of the notification in issue in this petition. I am not impressed with this submission, as it is clear from the record that challenge to the notification was specifically pleaded in those writ petitions and their Lordships while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions found no substance in the petitions and dismissed them on merit. 7. It is not disputed that in those writ petitions notification in question was challenged and the notification related to the acquisition of the entire land of 228 acres which obviously included the land belonging to all the petitioners in this petition. Even if some ground was not taken before the Honble Apex Court in the earlier petitions, that would be no ground for this Court to take any different view. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have sustained the validity of the notification on merits. As such the contention raised in regard to the validity or the effect of notification raised by the petitioners are rejected. 8. Another aspect of the matter is that the scheme has become unenforceable. Once the scheme has become unenforceable because of subsequent events, the notification itself is rendered ineffective and infructuous. Obviously, for raising this submission, the validity of the notification cannot be questioned, but there are certain mattes, which would, in my view, compel the authorities concerned to ponder over the matter and take decision on the basis of the facts existing on the site in the larger public interests satisfying the prescribed parameters. 9. Obviously, for raising this submission, the validity of the notification cannot be questioned, but there are certain mattes, which would, in my view, compel the authorities concerned to ponder over the matter and take decision on the basis of the facts existing on the site in the larger public interests satisfying the prescribed parameters. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that the notification issued by the Government was up held by the Supreme Court in the year 1987 and from 1987 to 1991 there was no stay orders in operation, still the Government neither took possession of the lands in question nor implemented the scheme. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners, as like the law abiding citizens, they did not raise construction on their lands and were deprived of any or all benefits of the land for all this period. It is also contended that major part of the scheme stands frustrated as heavy density construction has been raised on more than 65 cares of the acquired land and very limited part of the land remains unutilised, which, in any case, is not sufficient to implement the scheme as formulated and notified by the concerned authorities. 10. In response to this, the learned counsel for the respondent-Trust was not able to dispute the fact (nor there is anything on record to refute the same) that no steps were taken by the Trust for the period 1987 to 1991. As no plausible reason has been disclosed before the Court for inaction on the part of the Trust, the only explanation is that they received the order of the Honble Supreme Court passed in 1987 in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Trust, only in the year 1991. This excuse on the part of the authorities concerned is unacceptable. 11. It is also not disputed before this Court that heavy density construction has already been raised in more than 65 acres of the required land. Besides residential houses, big buildings have been constructed. One also fails to understand why the authorities permitted such constructions to be raised particularly when they are stated to be unauthorised constructions over this long period. The stay orders if at all granted by the Court were only restricted to dispossession. Besides residential houses, big buildings have been constructed. One also fails to understand why the authorities permitted such constructions to be raised particularly when they are stated to be unauthorised constructions over this long period. The stay orders if at all granted by the Court were only restricted to dispossession. Apparently, the colony has come up as is evident from the photographs on record with the effective connivance of the officials of the concerned department and the Trust itself. 12. The facts with regard to raising of construction and coming up of a colony were specifically averred in Civil Misc. No. 846 of 1996 which was filed in this Court on 15.1.1996. In reply to paragraph No. 5 of this application, the respondent-Trust has stated that the lay-out plan sanction had been amended under Section 43 of the Punjab Town Improvement. Trust Act and under the amended lay-out plan, number of buildings have been accommodated while for the remaining construction, which was unauthorised, Trust is taking action. Till the hearing of this writ petition, obviously no action appears to have been taken by the Trust. On the contrary in the affidavit now filed with photographs it has been shown that more constructions have come up or these unauthorised colonies have been provided with all facilities including essential amenities by the Corporation, Trust and other Government agencies. 13. This can hardly be disputed that the original scheme, because of these subsequent events, cannot be implemented in its entirety, An affidavit was filed, upon asking of the Court, by the Trust on 22.10.2002, during the course of hearing, where it is stated that the scheme can be implemented under the directions of the Court and it was also stated that after detailed survey, a fresh view would be taken whether the constructed areas should be granted exemption or not. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate arguing on behaif of the petitioners then contended that the authorities must act fairly and equitably. Such fairness and equity in administrative action should not only be done but must appear to have been done substantially. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate arguing on behaif of the petitioners then contended that the authorities must act fairly and equitably. Such fairness and equity in administrative action should not only be done but must appear to have been done substantially. Trying to invoke the doctrine of equity of fairness it is argued that the persons who have raised the construction unauthorisedly over the last years, they would gain, while the persons who are law abiding citizens, who have maintained the status quo at it existed even prior to 1987, would suffer, as their lands would be acquired at the price of 1971 as of today. If this approach is adopted by the authorities, it would essentially result in granting premium to the law breakers. 14. There is some substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in this regard. May be the petitioners have not been very fair, but they were certainly pursuing their legal remedies before the Court. As such the malafide cannot be attributed to them particularly to those who have kept their lands in the condition as they were in the year 1987 or immediately prior thereto. The inaction on the part of the Trust and the Government for a substantial period of more than three years has certainly caused imbalance in equities. Equity must tilt in favour of fairness and the authorities should also not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongs and unexplained delay in taking action in accordance with law. 15. Taking the cumulative effect of various factors that appear from the record it is clear that validity of the notification dated 1.4.1971 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has already been upheld by the Honble Apex Court. It is also clear that the scheme for Improvement of Truck and Timber Market in Pathankot by the Imprpvement Trust does not appear to have been frustrated in its entirety. In fact part of the acquired land round about 64 acres has already been utilised for complying with the implementation of the scheme. 16. The inequities are a direct consequence of inaction on the part of the State. It seriously effects the rights of the person who maintain status quo of their lands as it existed at the time of acquisition. The government neither took possession of these lands nor paid compensation to the claimants. 16. The inequities are a direct consequence of inaction on the part of the State. It seriously effects the rights of the person who maintain status quo of their lands as it existed at the time of acquisition. The government neither took possession of these lands nor paid compensation to the claimants. The State deposited the compensation in some cases in Court as late as in the year 1994 for the acquisition of 1971. In other words, it deprive the claimants of their effective rights over the land in question as well as the amount of compensation which they were entitled to. Despite the fact that there was no stay order from any court for a long period of three years i.e. from 1987 to 1991, the State as well as the Trust took no step to take possession of the land or to prevent the construction of the colonies over the land in disputes. Thus, it will not be fair for the State to act to the disadvantage of law abiding citizens. 17. In the above circumstances, the State is obliged to strike a balance to settle equity in regard to such person, of course, within the frame work of law and its policies. The affidavit filed by the Administrator of the Improvement Trust dated 22.10.2002 further shows that the Trust in consultation with the Government is reconsidering the matter for grant of exemption or taking such other steps as may be possible. 18. For the reasons afore-stated I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions :- i) The Improvement Trust, Pathankot, in consultation with the State Government, shall re-consider the entire matter in regard to implementation of its amended scheme; ii) The respondents shall take into consideration the inequities which have been created as a result of inaction and delay on the part of the State or its agencies; iii) It is not for this Court to pronounce upon the matters relating to State policies and implementation thereof. It is for the competent authorities to decide what State ought or ought not to do. Thus, I leave the matter entirely in the wisdom of the State Administration, However, with an observation that discrimination and inequities should be avoided by the State in its decision and actions, ground level or the policy decisions which the State ought or ought not to take. Thus, I leave the matter entirely in the wisdom of the State Administration, However, with an observation that discrimination and inequities should be avoided by the State in its decision and actions, ground level or the policy decisions which the State ought or ought not to take. Thus, I leave the matter entirely in the wisdom of the State administration, however with an observation that discrimination in equality and inequities should be avoided in the State action, particularly to the class of the petitioners afore-noticed; iv) The concerned respondents shall take appropriate action against all the erring officers and officials, irrespective of their position and status, who are found to be erring in any respect including the fact that the inaction on the part of the State. Trust and other Departments and agencies of the State, who have, by their conduct or otherwise, permitted the unauthorised colonies to come up, for all this period. The action should be taken against all such persons after holding enquiry in accordance with law. All such enquiries must be concluded within a period of six months from the date of pronouncement of this order. Report of compliance by the Secretary of the State, Administrator/Chairman of the Trust would be submitted to the Registrar of this Court. 19. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.